asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing any such compulsory schemes. They would be an impractical and bureaucratic nightmare, expensive to operate, and unlikely to achieve their objectives.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very negative Answer. However, is he aware that such a proposal as suggested in the Question arises from the respected all-party organisation of lawyers, known as Justice, and that without a compulsory scheme it is most unlikely that the significant number of householders who every year suffer from defective building work will ever be able to have an effective legal remedy?

My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is currently looking at the legal side and at how court procedures can be improved. We await his report with great interest. I am, of course, aware of the Justice report and have studied it. However, we approach this from a different angle from noble Lords opposite. We believe that where possible people should take responsibility for their own lives. The party opposite believes in a stakeholder society where other people take that responsibility.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the National House-Building Council, in which I must declare an interest as an honorary vice-president, does a very effective job already in insuring new-build properties for anyone registering with it?

My Lords, I can confirm that we are delighted by the progress made by the National House-Building Council in terms of looking after new properties. In the main, such properties are built by large firms and the scheme works well for them.

My Lords, in his rather dismissive Answer, the noble Lord said that he had read and, indeed, studied the Justice report. But has he paid attention to the foreword of his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who is recognised by all in this House as being a distinguished lawyer, in which he states:

"Over the last quarter-century many attempts have been made by official and semi-official bodies to tackle this problem. They have not succeeded"?

What Justice is proposing in the report is not bureaucracy; it is not something to which the noble Lord objects; it is a perfectly simple way of solving a problem that has affected at least 3 million people over the past three years in connection with building works. Will the noble Lord take the suggestion a little more seriously than he has up to now?

My Lords, we have taken it seriously and we have arrived at our conclusion. I do not believe that the noble Lord or, indeed, Justice has any evidence of the extent of the problem. There are no figures available and I do not believe that Justice tried to find any. It certainly produced none in its report.

My Lords, will the noble Lord look at the foreword that I have quoted in which his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, stated:

"an Office of Fair Trading survey estimated that every year as many as three million customers were dissatisfied with building work they had had done"?

Given that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, signed that, how can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say that there is no evidence?

My Lords, I am quite aware of what my noble friend Lord Alexander said in his introduction. However, that survey was not a statistical survey on which it is possible to rely. I know that my noble friend believes that that is sufficient evidence; we do not.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that monitoring such a scheme would mean an additional quango? As we already have sufficient quangos, would it not be much better to let private enterprise look after this sort of thing?

My Lords, if such a scheme were to work properly, it would need a whole enforcement mechanism, which would be both expensive and exceedingly onerous on builders. It would mean a great deal of extra expense for householders who would be forced to pay for it. We do not believe that that can be justified unless the person who wants the work done specifically wants such a guarantee, in which case he or she can go to one of the firms which operates a voluntary guarantee scheme where he or she may expect to receive such a guarantee and to pay more for it.

My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's initial Answer that they totally reject an insurance-based scheme, and bearing in mind the protection that is offered to the public as a result of the education, training and qualifications of the medical and legal professions, will the Government think in terms of ensuring that building operatives who engage in work for the ordinary public are properly educated and trained to a high standard of proficiency?

My Lords, it is all a question of proportionality. If you are going into hospital to have your heart operated on, you want to be able to rely absolutely on someone who has an expertise that you cannot begin to comprehend or criticise. However, I think that most of us expect to know a good painter or a good electrician when we see one.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many complaints relate to money paid in advance to small builders and that the proposed scheme would at least enable people to get back that money; whereas at present it is often impossible to get back one's money from small builders if one is dissatisfied with their work?

My Lords, we agree that in principle there may be a potential for improving court procedures to enable people to get money back from delinquent builders rather better than they can at the moment. That is the subject of a number of paragraphs in the Justice report and another study that is currently being conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. As far as concerns the imposition of a compulsory insurance scheme to cover every individual builder and DIY effort in this country, to police it and to pay for it, we believe that that amounts to an elephant sitting on a toadstool. It will crush it. It is totally disproportionate to the problem.

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that there is no licensing, registration or quango involved in the scheme that is presented by Justice? The scheme is self-enforcing.

My Lords, it does not seem to me to be self-enforcing. It contains no mechanism which in practice would enable it to be enforced unless there is policing of it to make sure that builders offer this guarantee and it is happening. For example, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the additional costs imposed on householders by the effective cartels in the alarm industry, which about double the cost. In general building work there is no cartel and the costs are much lower. We do not wish to impose these extra costs on householders for very little benefit.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the NHBC scheme, referred to by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, is self-enforcing, does work and should be encouraged to spread, thus obviating the need for anything else?

My Lords, I believe that the NHBC scheme covers about 95 per cent. of new build, and that it does very well.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, no. We have received no request from the World Health Organisation for information or assistance regarding an international obesity task force.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Did she notice that the announcement of the task force last month described obesity as a widespread epidemic which present arrangements were incapable of arresting? Can she confirm that the proportion of the population of the United Kingdom considered to be obese increased by 7 per cent.—in round figures, of course—between 1980 and 1991?

My Lords, the Government are tackling the issue, not in a nannying way or by telling people what to do, but by giving them the necessary information. I confirm the figures just given by my noble friend. Obesity is on the increase, although we would not describe it as an epidemic.

My Lords, it is hard to follow the noble Lord's lightweight approach without seeming heavy-handed. Does the noble Baroness agree that the efforts of the Government to achieve the target under the proposals in Health of the Nation to reverse the steady increase in obesity have so far proved ineffective or, to use the vernacular, a fat lot of use? To use the analogy of the task force that captured Port Stanley, if that is not too gross a metaphor, in terms of reducing people's weight would not the Government get useful advice from the proposed WHO task force?

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we set up the nutrition task force. It has made firm recommendations which the Government are considering. The Government will reply quite shortly and will publish the findings. The noble Lord will also be aware that there is an exercise campaign. Obesity is very complex; it concerns not only nutrition but also exercise.

My Lords, if the noble Baroness has communication with the World Health Organisation on this problem, will she ask it to concentrate its efforts on the hundreds of millions of people in the world who are starving rather than those who, perhaps for their own enjoyment, eat more than they should?

My Lords, we do not wish to tell the World Health Organisation what to do. However, the noble Lord is right. This is a condition of countries which are extremely well off; there are others where considerably more suffering occurs through starvation and lack of food.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are concerned about all reports of illicit trade in nuclear materials. But we have seen no authoritative corroboration of trafficking through Afghanistan; nor have any incidents been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency. International co-operation is essential in the fight against illicit trade of this sort. The issue will be on the agenda of the Nuclear Safety Summit in Moscow this week.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer which is an example to us all. Can she give a little more detail about the meeting in Moscow? I have been given to understand that the summit will specifically examine this subject. Is that the case?

My Lords, what I have just intimated is that nuclear smuggling will be high on the agenda of the Nuclear Safety Summit to be held in Moscow on 19th April. We have been actively involved for some time in international efforts to confront the problem, but it is the first time that the issue will have been addressed at such a high level. The evidence of the seriousness that we, the G7 and our Russian partners attach to the question is clear from the real efforts everyone is making to resolve the problem.

My Lords, bearing in mind the evidence that we have that nuclear material has been smuggled, or attempted to be smuggled, into Germany from the former Soviet Union, is it not likely that nuclear material is being smuggled into those countries named in the Question on the Order Paper? Can the House be assured that the Government are deploying what might be described as secret service or intelligence resources to detect the smuggling that common sense tells us is probably going on?

My Lords, there is a great deal of difference between people's perceptions of this and the facts. We have always taken the question of nuclear smuggling seriously, but we must keep it in proportion. In nearly all the reported cases, the amounts of nuclear material that have been found are absolutely tiny—only small fractions of what would be needed to make a nuclear weapon. There is no way in which we should try to pre-empt the summit outcome. We have for some time had contacts with officials and scientists in nuclear institutions in other countries, including the former Soviet Union. We are using all those contacts to address the issues of accountability for and security of nuclear material. That is what the conference in Moscow will do. The noble Lord may call it evidence, but I have to say that much of it is circumstantial, and a great deal of it is unproven. Even so, we are going to some considerable lengths to ensure that all countries exercise proper control over their nuclear material.

My Lords, while I of course accept that we must keep reports of this kind in proportion, and not exaggerate them, does the Minister agree that if there is any truth in them, it would be a matter of the utmost gravity? Not only could the material be purchased by irresponsible governments, as has been claimed, but it could also get into the hands of terrorists. Will the Minister tell the House why only a tiny part of the 1 billion dollars authorised by Congress for the dismantling of Russia's nuclear weapons has so far been spent?

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer in your Lordships' House for what happens in the American House of Representatives. I can answer for things for which we are responsible. When I talk of keeping this matter in proportion, the one thing I should point out to your Lordships is that it may be easier than any of us would like to smuggle some small amounts of fissile material, but it needs a great deal of knowledge and facility to turn that into the dangers of which the noble Baroness spoke. We are alive to the problem. We are working on the problem, and we shall leave no stone unturned in ensuring that nuclear smuggling is stopped.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the Americans are taking the lead in negotiating with the Russians about this problem, it is perfectly reasonable to ask a question in this House about expenditure on the problem that has been guaranteed by the Americans? I was rather surprised by the way in which the Minister answered my question at the outset.

My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is interested in the matter. So am I. But I have no influence over Congress directly, although we try to put the British point of view to individuals in Congress through the embassy in Washington. We seek to ensure that the American Administration live up to their duties. In this matter, as in many others, there is a difference between the White House and Congress, but we shall go on working away at it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we and our EU partners have regular contacts with Russia on the situation in Chechnya. In particular, EU Foreign Ministers made clear on 25th March their deep concern at recent reports of unprovoked attacks on Chechen towns and at the deterioration in the human rights situation.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm press reports that the chain of command in Russia has broken down, which would account for the fact that the recent ceasefire ordered by President Yeltsin did not take place? Can she give the House any details of the "filtration" camps I mentioned in my Question, which, according to information I have, are the same as concentration camps with torture and inhuman treatment regularly taking place? Can she confirm or deny that?

My Lords, we are obviously concerned about reports concerning the chain of command within the Russian forces. It is a matter of considerable discussion within the OSCE to try to ensure that the peace plan proposed some weeks ago is put into operation. But that plan requires, as my noble friend said, a chain of command to make it work. As to what my noble friend said about "filtration" camps, we are obviously deeply concerned at reports of all human rights abuses in Chechnya. We have repeatedly called on all sides to restore respect for human rights and to support the efforts of the OSCE and others who continue to investigate reports of violations. I am glad to say that the efforts of the OSCE in this work have improved considerably from a few weeks ago.

My Lords, does the Minister feel that the IMF lost an important opportunity to influence Russia towards a peaceful settlement of this expensive and destructive war when it agreed to the first tranche of a further 10.5 billion dollar loan to Russia last month? Cannot further tranches be tied to the withdrawal of Russian troops and the start of talks, without preconditions, so that the loan is not spent largely on continuing the war as the previous IMF loan was?

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right about the last IMF loan having been spent on a continuation of the war. I know, however, that conditionality is applicable only if it can be applied directly. The 10.5 billion dollar loan to Russia from the IMF is to support economic and political reform in Russia as a whole. I genuinely believe that it would be counter-productive to the many areas of Russia seeking to reform by means of macro-economic stabilisation if the IMF programmes were to be halted. We have to continue using the OSCE and the Council of Europe influence we now have with Russia to bring an end to the Chechen problem and to help the people of Chechnya to build up their lives following the terrible devastation they have suffered as a result of the conflict.

My Lords, did not the Question originally raised by the Minister's noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton ask specifically what was being done through the Council of Europe? The Minister touched upon that only marginally in her last reply. In view of the fact that we are members of the Council of Europe, together with a number of our colleagues and the Soviet Union, is there any particular reason why representations should not be made through that avenue which is open to us? Does the Minister intend to use those contacts within the context mentioned by the noble Lord in his Question?

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes. We must understand that Russia became a member of the Council of Europe only on 28th February last. The United Kingdom has been very active in the Council of Europe in respect of this matter. The Parliamentary Assembly and the member states' governments are to monitor the progress of Russia's compliance with her commitments. I learnt this morning that a visit is to take place to Chechnya in May. That is the next step for which we were looking but about which I was unable to respond to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth last night. Progress is being made. We expect Russia to respect the conditions imposed by the Parliamentary Assembly, which it agreed, concerning its terms of entry to the Council of Europe.

My Lords, would it help the Minister to know that the Council of Europe has established a working group to deal with Chechnya and that next week the group is meeting the Russian delegation to the Council of Europe, one of whose members is Mr. Zyuganov?

My Lords, that is most welcome news. The working group will be extremely valuable in backing up all that governments do and the OSCE mission tries to do. The situation is a good deal better than when I last answered questions on the matter in this House. There is now an assistance group which I hope will work with the Council of Europe working group so that talks may be brokered as soon as possible between all parties.

My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the recent report that General Dudayev offered to meet President Yeltsin face to face?

My Lords, I believe that I heard the same report as my noble friend. I know that President Yeltsin wanted to nominate someone to meet Dudayev. I understand that that is still a matter of hope but that a meeting has not yet taken place.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the peace plan announced by President Yeltsin earlier this month. Do the British Government support the terms of that plan? Are any representatives of the international community in touch with the Chechen leadership? Is any pressure being put on them to come to the table because I believe that earlier this month the Chechen side rather than the Russian side broke the ceasefire?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that on this occasion the Chechen side broke the ceasefire. However, on other occasions the Russians have broken the apparent ceasefire. Therefore, I do not believe that one can attribute blame more to one side than the other. The conflict is a tragedy and has claimed thousands of lives. That was why we were glad to see President Yeltsin's proposals for finding a peaceful solution. However, in order to attain that peaceful solution there must be an end to the fighting, a withdrawal of troops, a complete ceasefire—no little pockets of troops suddenly stirring up trouble in the outskirts of Chechnya—and working towards elections. Only in that way will the Chechen people be able to have their say on the future of Chechnya. We urge all sides to support the efforts to find a negotiated solution. When they show that willingness, the international community will be able to help to a greater degree.

My Lords, after the debate on fish stock conservation and management, my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the agricultural aspects of BSE.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Friday 26th April. —(viscount Cranborne.)

My Lords, why do the Government wish to rush through what is in many ways the most important Bill of the Session? Is it not a fact that experience has shown that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is a good opportunity for a full dress, high level economic debate, while the later stages of the Bill can furnish a good opportunity for raising specific points which your Lordships' House may wish to discuss and feel that another place can consider in the light of that discussion? In other words, why is the Finance Bill, which some of us regard as the most important measure of the Session, to be rushed in this way?

My Lords, my question was in connection with the Motion confining the debate on Wednesday to six hour—

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will have patience because that is the next item of business which will concern your Lordships. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I shall await his intervention with some interest.

I was not wholly surprised by the nature of my noble friend's intervention. He is as aware as any of your Lordships that the Finance Bill is a supply Bill. Your Lordships may pass or reject supply Bills but they may not amend any part of them. As my noble friend knows, that is the financial privilege of another place. I believe that he will agree that that privilege is jealously guarded by another place. As a result, your Lordships' Committee stage on supply Bills is invariably negatived.

I understand that amendments have not been tabled to supply Bills in your Lordships' House during the course of this century. Therefore, as regards the precedence, while I yield to no one in my desire that your Lordships should be able to go back to the conditions which obtained in the 19th century, I wonder how practical it is at this late stage of the present century to do so. My natural conservatism must yield to considerations of practicality, and therefore I suggest that my noble friend considers the advantages of that.

I agree that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill provides an opportunity for a general debate on economic affairs and I am sure that your Lordships will welcome that. However, perhaps I may point out that recently your Lordships have had a number of opportunities for economic debates, including a Motion on the tax and benefits system tabled by our noble friend Lord Skidelsky as recently as 27th March; a Motion on the Government's economic strategy tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on 20th March; a Motion on wealth creation tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on 21st February; and a Motion on inward investment tabled by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird on 31st January. I hope that my noble friend will consider that we have had a fair run on economic questions during the past few weeks.

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that answer, but will he answer the point that I raised? Why is it thought right to rush through the Finance Bill in one day when it would be perfectly feasible to take the Second Reading on one day and the remaining stages on another day? What is the hurry?

My Lords, I have not been in your Lordships' House nearly as long as my noble friend. However, my clear understanding is that for some decades it has been the habit of this House to pursue that device. If my noble friend wishes to change the habit of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may suggest that he submits one of his pithily argued memoranda to the Procedure Committee, which I am sure will be prepared to consider it.

I hope that I have the correct sense of the House when I say that it is your Lordships' wish that we should try to stick to what has been a well tried precedent during the course of this century.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Richard set down for Wednesday 17th April shall be limited to six hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)

My Lords, how many speakers are on the list for this debate? I believe that I counted at least 40 speakers this morning. How many minutes will that permit if the debate is confined to six hours? Why has a time limit been imposed on a Wednesday debate when there are 40 speakers?

My Lords, perhaps I may assist in this matter. This Motion is tabled at the request of the party which is in charge of the debate. Tomorrow's debate is a Labour Party debate. We have chosen a very topical and interesting subject. As a consequence, there are a large number of speakers. On these Benches, we traditionally hold the view that a debate on a Wednesday should be for five hours. By convention, that is the length of a normal debate. That five hours may be used to debate one subject or be divided into two—either two two-and-a-half hour debates or a three-hour debate and a two-hour debate.

When we chose this topic, we thought that there should be one debate but when we saw the number of speakers we realised that we would need to look carefully at the time for the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount is well briefed on this issue, but when we analysed the matter, we realised that each speaker would have not less than six minutes. We thought that by the time the 36th, 37th and 38th speakers had been reached, six minutes would be as much as the House could stand.

Therefore, we took the view that it would be helpful to the House to restrict the debate to six hours. Those speaking at the end of the debate will be here until 9.30 p.m., and of course there may be a Statement. A Statement is to be repeated today and that may well also be the case tomorrow. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe will also have noticed that there is the Second Reading of a very important Bill to follow the six-hour debate tomorrow. Therefore, in all the circumstances, we tried to take into account the interests of the whole House in reaching our decision.

My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that some of us are extremely grateful to be protected by the six-hour limit?

My Lords, faced with such a formidable, analytical combination, I can say only that I have nothing to add.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Elibank to be taken before that in the name of the Lord Willoughby de Broke on Wednesday 24th April. —(Viscount Cranborne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fish Stock Conservation and Management [Second Report, HL Paper 25].

My Lords, I start by heartily congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, on the way in which he introduced the Motion and chaired the sub-committee on which I was pleased to serve. Noble Lords will have gathered from his clear speech that this matter constitutes an almost intractable problem. I think that everyone agrees that there is a problem and that scientists have been drawing attention to the problem for 90 years. It is 90 years or more since the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) was formed in 1902 with the one objective of drawing attention to the danger of overfishing, and yet we appear to get ever further from resolving the problem of how regulations and policies on the management of fisheries can be put in place based on the scientific advice which is available.

The question which the Science and Technology Committee had to address was whether the scientific advice was defective and whether that was one of the reasons that regulations have failed to be informed by science. Alternatively, is the advice sidelined because it is inconvenient, inexpedient or too dangerous politically? What is needed by policy makers and by the fishing industry to make the scientific advice more effective? It is probably only in the latter half of this century that the problem has come to the attention of the public at large. Although, as I said, ICES was drawing attention to this problem at the beginning of the century, there was a perception that fishing catches around the world were limited by the fishing resource; that is, the amount of fishing effort. Now the perception is quite different. Now the situation is the opposite in that the catch is limited by the size of the natural resource. Between 1950 and 1989 the global catch rose but by 1989 it peaked at about 86 million tonnes. Since then it has stagnated and, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has explained, a number of fisheries have declined or collapsed.

The amount of fish available for human consumption has been maintained through aquaculture. If we are to see the amount of protein for the world's population that is derived from fish being maintained, clearly an awful lot will be asked of aquaculture. It does not need a deep inquiry to demonstrate that already aquaculture in many parts of the world has caused problems of pollution. Sometimes it has reached the limit of its exploitation. After all, it requires a great deal of protein in order to produce protein. It seems totally unrealistic to believe that we shall be able to make good the projected deficits from the catch from the wild resource. Depending on what population scale one wishes to use in one's calculations, by the next decade and well into the next century there will be an alarming deficit in protein derived from fish.

We must remember that only two-thirds of the catch is used for human consumption; the other third is used for animal feeds. That is partly because of the nature of the catch but it is also the result, quite frankly, of an extremely inefficient use of at least part of the catch. One may ask why this matters to the developed world as there will be other sources of protein. We shall obtain protein from plants and we may be able to obtain protein from other farming systems. Of course the problem is much more immediate in parts of the third world. In many parts of Africa and Asia, as we set out in the report, between 40 and 60 per cent. of the protein that is derived from animal sources comes from fish. In the third world there are few alternative sources of protein. The matter we are discussing will give major cause for concern as regards many developing nations where the per capita consumption of protein is already dangerously low.

There is agreement that an international attempt needs to be made to balance the take from the natural resource with the availability of the resource. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has already pointed out that this obvious strategy is already being thwarted by massive subsidies which are given, in their wisdom, by member governments. It is not fair to blame the scientists for this problem but it is nevertheless a fact that improved technology, improved engineering and improved techniques increase effort. However, above all, it is the failure, time and again, to put in place international measures to share this resource in an equitable fashion that has led to the problem. If one discusses the failure of the fisheries policy as regards our home waters, the debate is invariably polarised to the matter of the Spanish and the British quota hopping and other such matters. Such debate is a scapegoat for the failure of the overall framework to be adequately set, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, pointed out. There needs to be a major initiative to draw to the attention of world leaders that sustainable development is perhaps as important as any issue.

Nevertheless, it would be fair to recognise that in the past 12 months one modest measure of an international nature has been taken: that is the United Nations agreement on straddling and migratory species. That is welcome. It is a modest proposal. In so far as it is a start, it must be a precedent.

I must declare that I am a member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development. As your Lordships have heard, we suggested, and the Select Committee report repeats, the recommendation that there should be an intergovernment panel on the oceans. I congratulate the Government on having set up in November the London Oceans Workshop, which I was able to attend, at which that concept was discussed. It did not find approval from the delegates, although, surprisingly, the underlying need for such a panel was emphasised. The workshop agreed that there was indeed a need to improve co-ordination of the world fisheries. There was agreement that there was a need to achieve consensus. There was agreement that there was a need to improve the effectiveness of scientific advice. But the representatives were representing their own organisations. The last thing they wanted was the setting up of another organisation.

My conclusion is that many of those organisations, including those for which one has a great respect such as ICES, have failed lamentably over the past 20, 30 or 40 years to make an impact on international governments, including our own, and the European Union. Unless this concept is moved up the political agenda and given the force required, we shall continue to make little progress. I remain unrepentant. Despite the conclusion of the workshop, which I accept—it discarded the idea of a new panel—I believe that if we are to break the mould something of this nature needs to be undertaken urgently.

The workshop will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development. The Commission on Sustainable Development may lead with the force and vigour required. I think that we shall all pray that it will succeed in doing so.

When people get together to analyse what is going wrong, it does not take long to agree that in each fishery and subsection of those fisheries around the world there has to be a management agreement on what constitutes sustainable fishing. It will differ according to the species, the latitude, the type of fishing, and so on. None the less, someone has to put in an agreed policy on sustainable fishing. One has to put in policies to reduce the by-catch and, above all, to discourage discards and losses in storage and distribution. One has to find equitable ways of reducing the fishing to sustainable levels. One also needs to put in place policies which protect the marine resource from pollution and degradation. Therefore, it is not a matter just for fisheries. It is extremely important, for example, in this country to bring in the Department of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Agriculture. One of our recommendations—I hope that it is not seen as a criticism so much as an urge for better things—was that the Department of the Environment and the fisheries department should work more closely together.

I commend a recent initiative. It is led by both Unilever and WWF. They have established an independent marine stewardship council which will create market led economic incentives for sustainable fishing. This will establish broad sets of principles for sustainable fishing and set standards for individual fisheries. Only fisheries meeting those standards will be eligible for certification.

Those are precisely the initiatives required. There needs to be a framework in which all fisheries put together policies which are then defended to the hilt by the national governments involved. I am sure that our own fisheries Ministers and other national governments would welcome a much stronger steer not just from scientists but from the other components of the industry. It is no good denying that there are enormous socio and economic pressures. It is no good denying that if one is a Minister having to make a difficult decision it must sometimes be a relief that there is an element of doubt. If one has rival claims from competing fishermen, one is bound to support one's own.

We were impressed that the Norwegians had brought together the different components of the fishing industry in a way that we have been unable to achieve. I refer to an advisory council on which scientists, fishermen, consumers, environmentalists and policy makers are all represented. It is a very powerful committee. I recognise that in the European Union the issue is not so simple. It would be unrealistic if we thought that Spanish fishermen and Cornish fishermen, for example, would sit on a committee together and collaborate happily to determine an equitable solution. But even if we have to do it on a UK scale to begin with, it has to be done. It seemed to us surprising that there were so few examples of interdisciplinary panels on which all people come together, share the problem and ultimately own the problem. At the end of the day, that is the firmest advice that we can give.

At present scientists are not getting the message across. They are blamed by policy makers for being imprecise. They are blamed by fishermen for getting their science wrong. But as regards the other side of the equation, one finds that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and sometimes misinformation. Communications are appallingly bad. Even between the south west and the north east of the United Kingdom communications seem to be poor. If ever one needs to bring together interested parties, this is the sector where it should occur.

We need to develop robust management strategies throughout the world. We have to start at home; and we need to put in place some mechanism which we sorely lack at present.

My Lords, I am delighted to have served on the sub-committee. I begin by paying my regards and respects to our chairman. He made a marvellous opening speech. I honestly believe that we should seek some way of nominating him for an award on conservation. From the moment he took on the leadership of the sub-committee he played an active role in the conservation of fish. I am well aware that not many housewives seem concerned. Until fish and chip shops start to close, which would put people back into the kitchen producing their own evening meals, the seriousness of the situation may not be properly underlined in the public mind.

We were also lucky to have a specialist adviser of the quality of Professor Beddington. I am not sure whether it is improper in this House to say so, but in Philippa Tudor we had an excellent clerk. She was able to deal with large quantities of information; that she and the chairman were able to deliver a report as slender as it is is a tribute to their mastery of the facts and the language.

I wondered, in preparing for today's debate, how I could make a strong impression. I believe the situation to be urgent. What happened off the fishing banks in the North Atlantic is an important lesson which does not seem to have gained the public mind or the world political mind as much as it should. I read the recently released government response to our report. I am delighted that the Government distributed it to other governments through the European Union. However, I am a little sad that the urgency of the situation did not seem to be reflected as strongly as I would have wished in those government remarks. It is still open to the Government to take strong action and to make as many powerful remarks as they can about an awful situation.

Funnily enough, in the reading associated with the sub-committee's papers, which were voluminous, two documents made a big impression on me. They highlighted certain aspects of the problem of climbing up the agenda. The meteorologists have climbed the international agenda to the heights through the whole question of global warming. I find it fascinating that people are becoming concerned about the pollution of the seas by noise. It may be due to the power of ships' engines. Some new ferry boats produce an incredible amount of noise which is distressing to sea mammals, whales and dolphins. It is also probably having a serious impact on the way fish communicate with each other.

Taking matters a step further, I say to myself: "Isn't it interesting that there has been so much discussion in America about the possibility of detecting global warming by firing charges off California and picking up the sound on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?". If the Pacific Ocean is warming, the message is that the sounds will get through faster to the New Zealand and Tokyo listening points. There was considerable discussion but I was pleased to hear that the Americans had decided to go ahead. Global warming is a big problem. However, it was decided to restrict the number of charges fired to two or three a week rather than every hour which would have been a terrible noise for the poor whales. It was agreed to consider the situation at the end of the year and perhaps call the experiment off if it was causing too much trouble to the fish. That is the most marvellous example of scientists realising the importance of problems of fish and fish pollution. I apologise for the digression, but to me it is an interesting situation.

No one sitting on the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry, can have any doubts that there are grave difficulties of communication. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to them beautifully in his presentation. It is worrying when fishermen say, "We don't believe the scientists." It is worrying to hear members of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food imply that their job would be much easier if those damned scientists did not come forward with worrying information. In a democracy, where those wanting authority have to rely upon votes, it is difficult when the information you are given means that you must bring unhappy and unpleasant tidings to some of your constituents. Nevertheless, if the fishing effort worldwide has to be reduced by 30 per cent. to ensure that our children and grandchildren have fish of reasonable quality and different species to eat, we must somehow make that leap in communication.

The Scottish Office, which is concerned with fisheries, suggests more education. The Government, in their response, rightly said that they would look into the matter but thought that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals or a similar organisation could bear the burden and carry things forward. My feeling is that headway will only be made if so much noise is created in the magazines that ladies read at hairdressers about the need to protect fish that fishermen's wives and daughters will say to fishermen, "You'd better go to this course and learn about the science and problems that fisheries will face in the future". That may sound a puerile approach but until the public at the level of fishermen and their families become more interested in recognising what the science problems are and what has been learnt by organisations like ICES and FAO, the communication problem will be insurmountable. It must be surmounted.

Like my chairman, I wish to repeat the closing part of the report, which summarises where we stand. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to say that there is growing interest in the urgency of meeting the problems that we find. I am an ordinary doctor but I came out of the discussions convinced that the fisheries scientists, the fishermen and fishing managers who are trying to control fisheries and preserve them need more support. It was, I am sure, our chairman who wrote on page 54 of the report that,

"the lesson to be learned from the collapse of the Grand Banks fishery is that ignoring the warning signs year after year can end in the loss of thousands rather than hundreds of jobs. In their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home".

I would add, more generally, on the high seas.

If I were asked to compress the message that I am trying to convey in support of my chairman, I would say that we must take the whole question on board as a matter of great urgency.

My Lords, I also would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for the clear way in which he introduced the report and the debate. I also thank the members of the sub-committee. All three speakers so far have been members and the two who are to follow me were also members. The report is clearly the result of a searching inquiry and it is thorough and frank. The key sentence, in my view, in the conclusions is:

"Immediate steps must be taken by all developed nations to reduce their commercial fishing effort very significantly".

That is a short, clear sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, and other speakers have fully explained what the sub-committee found in the course of its inquiry and the reasons for those conclusions. The report confirms the impression which I and, I am sure, some others had formed about the extent of over-fishing. I shall not repeat or expand on material in the report. My contribution, which I hope will be fairly brief, will be to consider the immediate practical questions: how the need to reduce fishing effort can become acceptable among those involved in sea fisheries and how this reduction can best be carried out, particularly in the United Kingdom. Neither will be easy, although all British fishermen's organisations know that conservation measures are essential. They ask for such measures to be fair, sensible and properly monitored and policed.

On the question of acceptability, I shall quote from a statement made less than two weeks ago, on 3rd April, by the Scottish Fish Merchants' Federation, which represents an important part of the industry but not the fishermen. The statement said:

"The present management of the quota system has failed miserably. We urgently need a complete overhaul of the system for the future well-being of both catchers and processors".

I believe that we are all in general agreement on that, or at least we appeared to be in our debate on the common fisheries policy on 14th February. The statement continued:

"Quotas should be set at a realistic level and should not be solely based on scientific evidence, which can be inaccurate".

That is a recent example of scepticism about the findings and opinions of scientists which exists within the industry. The federation was advocating even larger quotas than those adopted recently in the European Union. We must recognise that, while conservation of stocks as a principle is widely supported, there are parts of the sea fisheries industry that will not agree with the suggestion in the report that quotas should be lower than they are, especially if apparently based only on scientific advice.

I, however, accept the Select Committee's conclusions, and I want to concentrate on the second question: how the necessary reduction in fishing effort can best be carried out in this country. The principal method must be decommissioning schemes. I shall not dilate on that, as I described what happened in our debate on 14th February. Most of the other fishing nations in the European Union had already adopted decommissioning schemes; so, given our scheme, British fishermen can now feel in a similar situation and need no longer be confined to harbour for weeks on end as they were under the previous British "limited days at sea" system.

The decommissioning scheme is voluntary. It is questionable whether enough money has been made available and whether the inducements are enough to produce the scale of reduction that is needed. I am worried, in addition, that new fishing boats coming into service may almost equalise the vessels that are being retired. Knowing that today's debate was in the offing, I asked a Starred Question less than a month ago (on 19th March) in the hope of obtaining the latest information. I was not disappointed. In the exchanges my noble friend Lord Lucas gave the House some very relevant facts. If I understood him correctly, he stated that licences for British boats to fish are being issued only if a new boat has a lower tonnage and less engine power than the boat it is replacing. I do not know whether or not it has to be much lower. I presume that no licence is issued unless a new boat is a replacement. That is a sensible policy, but it could take a long time before existing boats are replaced; and if the reductions in tonnage are small, they will not add up to very much.

The British decommissioning scheme is separate and unconnected with licensing. Because it is voluntary its impact depends on the public money available and the number of applications being made. If my noble friend has time when she replies to the debate I hope she may be able to give the House the latest information on the rate of decommissioning in this country.

While most, if not all, speakers in this debate will no doubt agree with the Select Committee's conclusion that a significant reduction of effort is necessary, we must consider the effects on the fishing communities. They are mostly now in small concentrations on the coast, many in our less populated areas where there is little alternative employment. I would support carefully crafted schemes for alternative employment designed to offset the required reduction in fishing boats operating from those areas. That would be part of a deliberate national strategy to conserve fish stocks.

The fact must be faced that in future there will be fewer fishermen working in their occupation at sea—not only in this country but also in other developed countries. One reason, as in other industries, is that less manpower is needed owing to modern technology. The other is the deliberate reduction of effort that is now necessary.

As regards advances in technology and in efficient catching power and equipment, they follow previous patterns and are not new in the fishing communities. For example, in Scotland it is reckoned that the amount of fish expected to be caught 60 years ago by 100 men during four weeks, with their contemporary types of boat, methods and gear, can be caught by 10 men in four days now. The vital question is whether the fish will be there to be caught in a few years' time.

For most of my life my home in northern Scotland has been close to fishing communities, some of which were in my constituency when I was in the other place. In the past, it was a day for celebration, which we all joined in, when a new up-to-date fishing boat first came into service. Now, modern, sophisticated additions to the fleet are possible only under the restrictive licensing that I mentioned. Fishermen whose fathers and grandfathers were fishermen cannot be certain that their sons will be able to follow on that path.

Another factor affecting these close-knit communities is that most of the boats nowadays are owned by groups of individuals, often within families. They are share fishermen, not employees of companies. The large British trawlers which habitually went on fishing voyages to Iceland and similarly distant fishing grounds have almost disappeared following the general adoption of 200-mile limits in 1976 and 1977. Most of them were based in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. They were owned by companies and the fishermen were their employees, many of them members of the seamen's trade union. The companies were able to see the warning signs and carry out a contraction over a period before the 200-mile limit was generally adopted, painful though that contraction was.

The large majority of British boats now are of medium size, normally at sea for less than a week at a time, and the emphasis has moved to Scotland, where operations are spread over many ports and harbours.

Moving out of fishing altogether can pose problems for the boat owners, who are individuals and families, apart from the loss of a traditional occupation and business. For example, a large tax bill may be presented—an accumulation which has been postponed, or rolled over, with the building and purchase of new boats in the past.

The boatbuilders upon whom the fishing industry relies, and will continue to rely in future, must also be borne in mind. They are likely to have fewer orders in future. But it would be a tragedy if they were all forced or encouraged to go out of business.

I could say a great deal more, but I hope that I have said enough to draw attention to the human, social and demographic problems which can arise from the necessary reduction that must take place. Every effort should be made to explain the cogent reasons for the reduction to all sections of the fishing industry and their families. The dreadful warning and lesson of the Canadian Grand Banks fishery and similar disasters should be pointed out, together with a reminder of the crisis nearer home when the herring fishery in the North Sea had to be closed for several years. It will be necessary to demonstrate that other fishing nations are deliberately reducing their fishing effort to a comparable extent. Unless action on these lines is taken there is bound to be dismay and discontent. I hope that most of our fishing industry will be convinced, through the good communications recommended by the Select Committee, and will co-operate fully in a long-term strategy.

I end on a lighter note. Although we are a maritime nation, the media are careless with descriptions and terms of a nautical nature. Fishing boats are described as "trawlers" in cases where clearly they are not. Even when a newspaper report describing an incident or dispute indicates that the operation in question is lifting creels by a shellfish boat, the boat is called a trawler. The same applies with seine-net boats and others. All fishermen are "trawlermen", though most of them have never been in a trawler in their lives. I say this because I believe there is a gulf between the fishing and maritime communities and the rest of the country. Even when a dispute about methods being used is reported, vessels using drift nets, which are quite different from trawls, and others using long lines are again all called trawlers. How can the fishermen involved and their families respect what they read in the press when they see the most elementary mis-descriptions? It is difficult for the public to understand the issues and appreciate the livelihoods of our coastal communities in those circumstances.

Of course, on the other side, there are technical terms which may confuse: a cod-end is not a codpiece. Jargon in international circles also makes comprehension very difficult. Noble Lords will know the term "straddling stocks" and understand what it means. But it is not so easy for our landlocked citizens to know what it means, especially when they do know that very few fish have legs.

My Lords, it was a privilege for me to be invited to become a co-opted member of the sub-committee conducting such an interesting and important inquiry. I very much enjoyed working under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, with the expert advice of Professor Beddington, and we were all greatly helped by our extremely capable clerk, Dr. Tudor.

The report has been very timely. It coincided with an upsurge of public concern and interest in this problem, reflected in the fact that, although many reports of your Lordships, into which a great deal of work and care has gone, do not attract any public attention, this report certainly did. It had a great deal of publicity, which was very useful.

Previous speakers indicated the fundamental problem: the enormous reduction, year on year, of the stocks of fish all around the world. Occasionally, that can be due to natural and manmade hazards. Apart from pollution and oil spills, holes in the ozone layer may, for example, be reducing the numbers of photosynthetic plankton—the microscopic plants on which the planktonic animals, the zooplankton, which include krill, feed, so affecting sea life higher up the food chain. Also, of course, fish eat each other; we know that the whiting is a particularly voracious fish. The other day, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave us some startling figures about the estimated consumption of fish by seals around our shores.

A particularly serious problem is when natural hazards are joined to man-made hazards. A notable example is the collapse of fisheries by 90 per cent. in six years in the Black Sea, reported on in New Scientist late last year. That is one example of collapse of a fishery which is not due to over-fishing but to the fact that the deeper waters of the Black Sea are filled with rotting vegetation brought down by the many rivers. Therefore, they become anoxic and virtually a desert which supports no life. A comb jellyfish imported in ballast tanks from the United States has multiplied fantastically and eats all the eggs and larvae of the fish. Combined with the terrible pollution from Russia and eastern Europe, that has effectively wiped out that fishery.

But in most parts of the world the collapse of stocks is due simply to overfishing. The Food and Agriculture Organisation records that the world's commercial marine catches rose from about 20 million tonnes in 1950 to 86 million tonnes in 1989, an increase of well over 300 per cent. in less than 40 years. It calculates that 25 per cent. of fish stocks are overfished, depleted or recovering; that 44 per cent. are either heavily or fully fished and at risk of overfishing; and that since 1970 there has been a 62 per cent. decrease in the global index of fish resources abundance and a 73 per cent. decrease in the abundance of high value species. As a result of that overfishing, a number of major fisheries have collapsed or may soon do so.

Reference has already been made to the Grand Banks Fishery, which is perhaps the single greatest and most famous fishery in the world, about which Kipling wrote in Captains Courageous. It has been virtually wiped out and I believe that so far there is no sign of any recovery. In the Whitsun Recess last year I was in New England and met a Mr. Charles Collins who had produced a report on the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine Fishery off New England. He very kindly gave me a copy of that report, which I circulated to my colleagues on the sub-committee. It was striking that the problems there were almost exactly the problems that we faced in the North Sea.

But we ourselves cannot do anything about the problems in distant parts of the world. The only area in which we have a limited influence is European waters. So far as we are concerned those are controlled by the common fisheries policy. I noticed when we were making our inquiry that we covered quite a lot of the same ground as an earlier report in 1992 by a sub-committee of the European Communities Committee had covered, specifically on the common fisheries policy. That inquiry was chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and both the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I were also members. I noted that when we discussed such matters as the over-fishing of cod and haddock, discards and black fish, decommissioning, square mesh panels and TACs, we were treading familiar ground.

But, in fact, the problem is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and succeeding speakers said, that it does no harm to have it revisited. The more we can do to bring the seriousness and urgency of the problem to the attention of the public the better. The essence of the problem, as others have said, is over-fishing. The passage that struck me most in all the evidence given to our committee was made by a leading authority, Professor McIntyre, who said:

"We know what the solution to the problem is, and that is simply to reduce fishing effort. If we doubted that at all we had the excellent examples of the two world wars where for four years fishing effort was practically stopped. Before each of these world wars the stocks were in a poor state. Four years later they were in a first class state".

That is a clear example of the kind of direction in which we should be moving.

The common fisheries policy is in a state of some crisis. As I have mentioned before in this House and most recently in the debate last night on the IGC, the Factortame judgment, which legalised quota hopping, torpedoed the whole basis of the policy which was based on national quotas and the principle described as "relative stability". In fact, one quarter of our entire quota is fished by foreign boats—150 of them. The Government say that they propose to pursue that in the IGC but the prospects of achieving anything where unanimity is required seem pretty thin.

Last year we had the North Sea Conference. That was primarily a conference of environment Ministers, but a leading expert—Dr. Mark Tasker, of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—said then that North Sea cod would become commercially extinct within the next five years. It was likely to vanish in commercially harvestable numbers because EU states would not make the 50 per cent. cut in fishing that was necessary to save it. A move was made to include in the conclusions of the conference a statement about the absence of political will exhibited by North Sea fisheries Ministers. But that was deleted. It was felt that environment Ministers could not criticise fishery Ministers. All the conference decided was that there should be another conference this year in Norway to talk about fishing.

We know that there are great problems with TACs. In fact, the system of total allowable catch and single species quotas used in the common fisheries policy to control exploitation does not work. The quotas set by politicians are often much too high; also, as English Nature pointed out, they are based only on the landed fish rather than the actual catch at sea. In the words of English Nature therefore, "the system fails". With mixed stocks the system leads to massive discards—the throwing over the side of unwanted fish because they are the wrong species or too small. Those fish die. The FAO estimates that the world annual level of discards may be 27 million tonnes, described by our adviser, Professor Beddington, as,

"a staggering figure in the context of a total world catch of less than 100 million tonnes".

At this point I draw attention to a fish that is seldom mentioned in your Lordships' House; that is, the basking shark. It is a fish that visits our waters in summer. It is a huge fish—the second largest in the world—and a harmless plankton eater which enjoys no protection. It is hunted by one single fisherman who has killed 440 since 1983. The Government say there is as yet insufficient evidence to support protection. However, it seems wrong that that great and harmless fish should not be conserved. If we care about conservation the Government should put in place some measures to protect it.

I want to say something on industrial fishing, which is covered in our report. Industrial fishing means fishing by fine-mesh nets for smaller species of fish like sprats, sandeels, capelin and Norway pout. Inevitably the nets catch many juveniles of food species, all of which are turned into fishmeal or used in the manufacture of oils and fats. It is a method practised by the Danes and, to some extent, by the Norwegians.

Industrial fishing accounts for no less than half of all the fish removed every year from the North Sea. I am glad that our recommendation to promote a TAC for sandeels has been accepted by the Government. I understand that at the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 22nd April the Minister of State responsible for fisheries—Mr. Tony Baldry—will propose the introduction of that precautionary TAC.

An important point made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is the localised impact of industrial fishing. It points out that in 1993 the Danish fleet took the staggering figure of 100,000 tonnes of sandeels off the Wee Bankie, on the Fife coast of Scotland. MAFF undertake no research on sandeels and we have no knowledge therefore of the impact of such enormous catches on local human consumption fisheries and other wildlife such as sea birds and marine mammals. Apart from the need for a precautionary TAC for sandeels generally, the RSPB believes it important that quotas are set for individual sandeel fishing grounds such as the Wee Bankie. That is extremely important and I support what the society has suggested.

The Salmon and Trout Association, which is concerned about migratory salmon and sea trout, agrees with the suggestion and recommends that there should be a full multi-species assessment of the effect of industrial fishing in the North Sea and that, in the meantime, we should protect the position with a precautionary TAC. I shall be interested to know whether or not the Government will consider recommending such a full multi-species assessment. That too is important.

I should like to mention one further matter raised in the report; that is, the question of drift nets. As your Lordships will know, at the moment there is a restriction of 2.5 kilometres on the length of drift nets. That has proved almost impossible to enforce. Initially, I understand that Ministers felt there was not enough scientific evidence to justify a total EU ban on the use of high seas drift nets. But our committee recommended such a ban on the basis of the precautionary principle.

At the end of last year MAFF published its latest research on by-catch in the UK tuna fleet. It indicated that somewhere in the region of 1,500 dolphins were being killed annually in the North East Atlantic tuna fisheries. There is therefore a problem. MAFF may be thinking of trying dolphin doors; that is, areas in the netting which are open to allow dolphins to escape. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that dolphin doors may be effective in reducing a dolphin by-catch. In any case, the nets may catch other species such as turtles and sharks in large numbers. There is therefore a strong case for a ban, as we propose.

The question of research was of great concern to our committee. Professor McIntyre, to whom I referred earlier, emphasised the need for more medium and long-term research such as looking at both the physical and biological interactions in the sea and the behaviour of fish in relation to fishing gear. He also recommended that in aquaculture a priority should be research into fish diseases, which is of obvious importance.

The RSPB is concerned about the possibility that the Directorate of Fisheries Research may be given agency status. If that is done, it may encourage a shift to expedient, short-term research, thus weakening the United Kingdom's fisheries science base. That would be a great pity because the directorate has done admirable work. I went with some of your Lordships recently to a presentation arranged by Mr. Tony Baldry at which we were able to talk to a number of the MAFF scientists. I was very impressed by what I learnt on that occasion, and I should be very sorry if there were any weakening of our fisheries research, especially at this time.

One aspect we considered was the question of beam trawling. That is covered in the Ministry's response where it plays down the damage done by the trawling. I have always understood that carrying a heavy tickler chain along the seabed is an extremely destructive practice to all kinds of species, particularly as many areas are raked by these beam trawls seven or eight times a year. However, the response from the department tends to discount that. I wonder whether that is justified.

My final point concerns our recommendation about scientific advice, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. In paragraph 3.17 of our report we say—I am sure this is right—that scientific advice must be presented clearly and concisely. At the end of the paragraph we say:

"But scientific professionalism is currently providing an excuse for political compromise".

I hope that that will not be taken as a criticism of scientists or as a suggestion that they may be pulling their punches in making their recommendations. I do not think they are. I have had a careful look at the advice given by ICES to the Commission on cod, haddock, whiting and saithe stocks in the North Sea over the period of years from 1989. Again and again it has set out in extremely clear terms the dangers of taking no action. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one or two examples. In 1989 it said:

"The stock of cod has been fished down to a very low level and survival is so low that recruitment is insufficient to maintain the stock in most years".

It goes on to say:

"The immediate prospects for the North Sea haddock stock are very disturbing".

Year after year it has said that fishing should be limited to 70 per cent. of the 1989 fishing effort. In 1992 it said:

"Seen in isolation, fishing effort on cod should be reduced to zero".

It seems abundantly clear that where we have gone wrong is in not taking any notice of what the scientists have said. The fault lies with the politicians rather than with the scientists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Perry, that the government response is disappointing, but I welcome Mr. Tony Baldry's decision to bring together the scientists and the fishermen. That has been extremely useful; it is an initiative we can warmly welcome.

My Lords, I am grateful to have sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and I found the whole experience, although extremely alarming, one of considerable interest. If I were a manager I think I would have found plenty of ways of wheedling my way into the various arguments that have been put forward and finding an excuse to procrastinate and delay for yet a little longer. So I thought I might speak as though I were painting with a very broad brush and emphasise the point which I think is the most important of all. It will not surprise my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is to cut fishing effort by decommissioning.

Noble Lords may remember that some time back, when a report of Sub-Committee D was mixed up with a fisheries Bill, I managed to win an amendment to that effect by no fewer than 53 votes—my personal best. The fact is that if only this 30 per cent. decommissioning could take place all these other problems would be solved almost at a stroke. It would cost an enormous amount of money. So far this country, lagging a little behind our partners in Europe, has managed to cough up £54 million. In point of fact the fishing effort has hardly gone down at all because, as other speakers have said, there have been improvements in tackle, engine power and so on.

We are talking about decommissioning world wide and that means involving the great fishing nations. Obviously one has to leave out artisanal fisheries, where someone sits in a canoe with a throw net or something of that kind, but it strikes me that if the International Monetary Fund can come to the rescue of bankrupt nations, why should it not come to the rescue of bankrupt oceans? We are dealing with an extremely serious matter, the fishing out of all the oceans—something that could have been the subject of an H.G. Wells book years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, said that 69 per cent. of the oceans are in a depleted or unsatisfactory state of one kind or another. That is saying quite something, especially if one flies across the Pacific from Sydney to Hawaii and one then goes on to Vancouver, but I can well believe that it is true.

An international body will have to be formed if anything is to happen and the sooner nations get together and do just that the better. They should then approach the source of money which I mentioned, no doubt putting in some themselves. This is not just a theoretical business—the Georges Bank and the Newfoundland Bank have serious problems and the pollack fishery off Alaska is in an even worse state. In the United States the other day I met the young skipper of a deep sea trawler. His partner was on the vessel in the Caribbean. The skipper said that they were under this TAC system and that instead of throwing back nets full of cod he had been told on the radio that they had to throw back a blue-finned tuna weighing about 1,000 pounds because, unfortunately, they were over quota.

Perhaps I should continue the story in case any of your Lordships doubt the efficiency with which those vessels can fish. I said to that same man, "Your base is Boston. If you have to go all the way back there to sell your fish, that will cut you down to size". As the report shows, that is what happens to the Norwegians; they have to return to only a very few ports. Indeed, our vessels have to come back to port. However, that man said, "Oh no, our vessel is big enough to carry the right sort of cartons in which to pack the fish. We can dock anywhere reasonably close to a sensible airport. Our agent in Boston is radioed. He sells the fish, which goes as frozen cargo on a plane to the appropriate place". Like the American seventh fleet, that man's vessel seldom has to go home except for a refit.

I should like to refer to another point on which I have a question for my noble friend. The report refers to "ownership" and to a sense of ownership in relation to fisheries. It refers particularly to the European fisheries and the individual transferable quota. I am a great believer in the idea that ownership means a lot. By that token, the common fisheries policy is bad for fish. I am not making a political point, but in relation to fish conservation, a common fishery tends to be worse than if nations looked after the stocks within their own 200-mile limit.

My question is: is there technically any way out of the common fisheries policy, which, with respect, is such a disaster? I believe that 20 years after its start the whole matter is to be reviewed. Does my noble friend think that it would be right for us to try to extricate ourselves from a situation which Brussels now admits is pretty disastrous? This country has been complimented. It has been said that we do not cheat—of course, euphemisms were used—quite as much as other countries.

The common fisheries policy has caused endless trouble. It has caused dislike between nations. It has caused deceit, cheating and black fish. Like the cheating, the whole system of discards undermines the data which the scientists use to set the next lot of total allowable catches. So, the whole thing goes round in a mad circle. That is why I ask that question.

I should like to raise two small further matters. First, although I have not been to Norway recently—I went there quite a long time ago to look at its fish farming and fish markets—I believe that notice should be taken of how that country operates its fishing. I refer particularly to the fact that Norway involves its fishermen in its deliberations whereas we do not. My noble friend may say, "Yes, we do", and may point to certain areas, but we certainly do not do it enough. That in turn has created its own troubles and antagonisms.

Finally, I must say something about fish farming. Unfortunately in the first five minutes of our first meeting we discovered that my fish ate more fish than they produced fish flesh themselves. In point of fact, the whole thing was a total disaster and the return was absolutely nil. On the other hand, developing countries are interested in fish farming—but one must be careful about what one classes as a "developing" country. At home we had the pleasure of entertaining President Wasmosy of Paraguay and the whole of his Cabinet for lunch. He wanted to see the fish farm. We took him round it and I sent him masses of information from Stirling University. Perhaps he is now getting going on that. I am sure that in the Middle East, South America and Africa there is a huge amount of scope to develop fish farming with tilapias and carp. They are not my favourite dish, but they might keep someone alive who might otherwise die.

My Lords, not only the whole House but the whole Community owes an enormous debt to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and his committee for its report and for the noble Lord's illuminating description and exposition of it. It is, indeed, a devastating report for the whole Community, for our fishing community and for our colleagues in Europe. All who read the report must regard it as a salutary warning which will be ignored at their peril. It is not that the report refers specifically and only to European waters; it also covers the broader perspective of the world-wide problem in great detail. As has been mentioned, there is a problem in Alaska, in the north-west Pacific and, indeed, throughout the world.

Members of the committee have clearly pointed out all the elements of the report and its conclusions, so I shall not dwell on them too heavily. However, I must mention that in previous debates on this many speakers have called for the reform of the common fisheries policy. I note that it is a universal request that it be reformed. I have pleaded that the policy should be debated at the IGC. It is perhaps the consternation over quota-hopping and not this report which has induced the reference of the policy to the IGC. That is excellent, if ironic, news. I trust that the opportunity will be taken at the IGC to have a thorough-going review of the policy in all its aspects, especially in the light of this report. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his reservations about the usefulness of that. Nevertheless, decommissioning is required and it is only through the CFP that we shall achieve the full amount of decommissioning that is required—that is, at least 30 per cent.

I have no panacea to reinforce the committee's call for urgent action, but it would perhaps be useful to promote one activity immediately. The Ministry's Directorate of Fisheries Research gave evidence, highlighted in the report, on the modification of trawl gear to allow small fish to escape through the introduction of separator panels and square mesh inserts. The matter of the square mesh inserts is well advanced, but I hope that the line of research on separator panels will be vigorously pursued and that a proposal based on the research will be promoted throughout the common fisheries policy. I believe that that would do much to relieve the besetting and ugly problem of discards.

All noble Lords have spoken of Norway. On reading the report, I noticed particularly how Norway has benefited from being outside the common fisheries policy and how well it is doing. What an example to us. I note that my noble friend Lord Radnor asked my noble friend on the Front Bench whether we can get out of the CFP. I feel that that is doubtful. We seem to be irretrievably locked into that policy, which is particularly harmful to the UK and its fishermen. A fish rearing project has been promoted by the Norwegians and it is to be hoped that the Norwegians will develop a policy that eliminates the use of organophosphates and other dangerous chemicals in promoting fish farming on a wider scale. I do not know whether that is possible, but I think that such a proposal should be pursued. We should co-operate with the Norwegians in every possible way because they seem to be extremely successful in the light of our failures.

Lastly, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, that his report should be translated into all necessary languages and distributed throughout the European Union. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether at least the conclusions in Chapter 3 of the report can be translated into the necessary languages and sent to all Heads of State and certainly to all directors general of the European Union. The authority of your Lordships' Select Committee will undoubtedly give them pause for very grave and deep thought.

My Lords, although I am not a member of the distinguished committee which produced this report, my home is at Fraserburgh which is one of the leading fishing ports in the country. Its prosperity was founded on fish, and its prosperity still depends upon it. The practice of discarding fish in order not to exceed the quota or the total allowable catch, or because the fish are under sized must be abhorrent to all sensible people, not only because of the waste involved—since almost all discards die—but because pollution of the water from large quantities of dead or dying fish cannot be conducive to a healthy environment for the fish which remain in the sea and are left to breed.

I urge the Government to press for a combination of escape panels in fishing nets, as described in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.23, of the report of the Select Committee, and an increase in the money available, as mentioned in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for decommissioning. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated that the total allowable catch and quota system was responsible for much of the discarding. I believe that it should be phased out and that other methods of control should be introduced.

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate in which many points have been covered. When I heard that there was to be another report on fishing by a committee other than the European committee I wondered why, since the European Committee had just produced an excellent report. However, my noble friend extended the scope in a way that the European committee could not and started off by quoting the devastating fact that some 69 per cent. of the stocks in the world were over-exploited, were on the way out or were becoming so. This is a world-wide problem.

In particular, I was interested to note that the report went much wider than the great troubles occasioned by the enormous advance in technology, the greatest of which was the advance in navigation to enable a fisherman who could work his machinery to go to a spot in the sea within 100 yards of where he knew the fish were. This has led to an enormous advance in the number of fish that a competent skipper can catch. The report also focuses on the problems of the Bangladesh estuary and the under-developed world where a lot of people are getting a much smaller headage of protein from fish than before. The problem is highlighted by the report. The European situation does not give the full extent of the disaster that faces the fishing community and the human race who eat fish.

One of the matters that has been highlighted by a number of speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for one, is that we should learn from the examples which work. There is no question but that the Norwegians are making a much better job than anybody else of conserving the fish in their area. They are patrolling the area. Their fishermen are consulted. Fishermen are not allowed to discard; they bring home the fish. They are doing all of the things that we in Europe should be doing.

I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, on one matter. It is essential that we have a common fisheries policy. We can all agree that the present policy is all wrong, but that we have to have a common fisheries policy there is no doubt at all.

I also disagree slightly with the noble Earl and say that total allowable catches are absolutely essential. They should be based not on political considerations but on a combination of what fishermen know and what scientists say. What is wrong is the way in which we have applied the restrictions on catches, because they do not have the confidence of fishermen.

A number of speakers have said—it sticks out a mile—that decommissioning is the answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, it is no good replacing a boat with one that is slightly smaller but has a much higher level of catching ability. One has to work out a decommissioning policy in which enough money is applied to reduce the total number of people who catch fish and to find alternative employment for them.

The transferable quota system is easy to work but it lands us in the situation where a fisherman's quota is worth more than his boat. One creates an intolerable situation in which no young man can come into fishing, even if he gets a licence, without paying an enormous sum for a quota which is artificially created. I see no reason why we cannot work out a licensing system that prevents a grave situation in which an artificial obstacle is created to stop young men coming in.

We talk about the necessity of a common fisheries policy but we must be willing to pay for it. There must be a common inspection service, a quango—call it what you will. While the fish landed in northern ports in Britain and elsewhere are logged fairly accurately, if one considers the inspectors in Spain and other Mediterranean countries, their figures are totally wrong. There is no possibility of those figures being right until there is a European body to control the matter.

Perhaps the Minister will tell me how many fishery patrol vessels and helicopters we have in Britain. What size of force or unit is devoted to fishery control and what is its cost? What is the position in the rest of Europe? The answer will be that we spend far more and that in the rest of Europe the amount spent is totally and completely inadequate. If fishermen are to have a decent policy, they must be subject to control. After all, a whisky producer in Scotland or elsewhere is not allowed to keep the key to his own still so that the Government can collect the revenue. In this case, it would be worth putting up with a good deal of control to ensure that there were fish left to catch.

The report is wide ranging on a serious problem. The FAO needs to be the leader in controlling the catching and preservation of fish world-wide. It appears to be the natural body to do so. It exists, and it has a great deal of knowledge. The report did a great service in pointing out that we must have a substitute for fish meal if we are to carry on fish farming. The enterprise of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, may still pay well if it takes 5 lbs. of cheap fish to convert into 1 lb. of expensive fish. But the lesson we are learning is that we must find a protein fish will eat if fish farming is to play the part that it needs to play in feeding the world in future. It is a good report.

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and his colleagues for producing an excellent report which gives a good analysis of a problem of world-wide dimensions. If one reads between the lines of the report, one has the feeling of a combination of pusillanimous governments, scientists hobbled by budgetary constraints, fishermen who are adept at massaging and managing whatever controls are applied and a general reluctance to accept that drastic measures are required if an acceptable solution is to be found.

A number of the most important and relevant points have been covered in the debate. I should like to touch upon just a few of them and then consider a problem which is mentioned in the report but which, for understandable reasons, is not addressed in any great depth; that is, the effect on developing countries of the fishing effort of the countries of the EU and others being diverted to the coasts of Africa and Asia, with a particular example from the Gambia, which graphically illustrates the problem.

I think that we can all agree that the biggest scandal in all fisheries management is the problem of discards. The report sets that out extremely well. There is a famous aphorism in paragraph 1.5, with which we are all familiar:

"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life".

The temptation is to paraphrase that and to suggest that teaching a man to fish now requires him to be taught how to discard 27 million tonnes per annum world-wide, while the developing countries are crying out for protein. It is a curious harvest indeed when 25 per cent. of the total catch is wasted.

The report grapples exceedingly well with the problem of relating TACs to the discard problem, but one is driven to the conclusion, which is implied in the report, that it will be impossible to solve the discard problem while TACs are the main chosen method of controlling the fishing effort.

The subject of fisheries research is well analysed in the report. Paragraph 2.36 points out that total government spending on fisheries research is £19 million per annum for an industry worth £500 million in terms of fish landed annually. Paragraph 2.29 of the report and paragraph 54 on page 177 of the written evidence say all that needs to be said about our research effort. I quote the ministry's evidence:

"The difficult area in decision making is the work which although valuable may seem unlikely to produce usable results within a reasonable timescale. Where there are pressures on research budgets this is the kind of work which will be given lower priority".

When are there not pressures on research budgets? What is a reasonable timescale in this context when we are dealing with a problem of, as I said, world-wide dimensions? It is also to be hoped that fisheries research will not be bedeviled by the artificial construct of "near market" and "public good" research which has so affected agricultural research in recent years.

I was struck, as were a number of noble Lords, by the evident approval in the report for the Norwegian management of its fisheries. On a lighter note, I am sure that noble Lords must be relieved that my noble friends Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, are not here to point out the evident advantages of not being members of the common fisheries policy.

Paragraph 2.79 of the report has a quotation from Dr. Garcia of the FAO who pointed out the different objectives and lifestyles of fishermen, scientists, governments and politicians, and when I read it I thought how relevant it was. In the committee's conclusions I thought that there were overtones of the BSE crisis when it pointed out that,

"scientific professionalism is currently providing an excuse for political compromise".

Curiously, there are other overtones of the BSE crisis in the report, particularly when it refers to the feeding of fish to fish in paragraph 2.115. I agree that we must find alternative sources of protein. The effect of the BSE crisis will be a substantial increase in the price of fish meal.

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not mind me interrupting for a moment. Does he recognise that fish normally eat fish?

My Lords, yes. I was actually thinking of the economic case made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and pointing out that the result of the BSE crisis will be a substantial increase in the price of fish meal because of the ending of the supply of meat and bonemeal.

With all the current problems of bovine manure and offal disposal in mind, it was something of a shock to read in paragraph 2.118 about,

"the most intensive large scale animal production units in the world",

and to realise that that description now applies to aquaculture. Obviously there are substantial pollution problems which must be considered. When I read on pages 341 and 342 of the evidence that organochloride pesticide is being used to control sea lice with a compound that has adverse effects, I began to contemplate a whole new field of interest for the noble Countess, Lady Mar. To be more serious, an alternative to the organochlorides must be found.

The committee gives a guarded welcome to the idea of individual transferable quotas. Unless I have missed it, the question of quota hopping is not fully addressed. With the Factortame judgment in mind and the recent decision by the ECJ, I wonder whether the committee was able to give sufficient thought to those factors when cautiously recommending ITQs. We are all aware of the problem of the transfer of quotas across national boundaries.

I do not think that I need say more about the Government's response to the report. That was put extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, when he opened the debate. If the Government have not kicked the problem of fisheries into touch, they have certainly kicked it very firmly into the IGC.

I referred earlier to developing countries and fisheries policy. The report touches upon that subject in a number of places, in particular in paragraphs 2.42 and 2.43 where it is pointed out that third country agreements account for 36 per cent. of the 774 million ecu allocated to the 1994 fisheries budgets.

As it happens, only last week I attended a meeting of the Marlborough Brandt Group—an organisation set up in Wiltshire some 16 years ago as a result of the Brandt Report. It does much excellent work in bringing home the problems of overseas development. It has established a particular and longstanding relationship with the village of Gonjur which is the principal fishing village in the Gambia. With today's debate in mind, I asked the group to provide me with a brief to illustrate this aspect of what is a world-wide problem. The brief makes dispiriting reading.

The Gambia is estimated to be the tenth poorest country in the world. The staple diet of the Gambian people is rice and fish. The internal economy of the Gambia is dependent upon fish. The livelihoods of most of the women are dependent upon the smoking, drying and marketing of fish. Fishing off the coast of Gambia is done mainly by Senegalese fishermen who bring their catch to several of the Gambian fishing villages, of which Gonjur is the principal one. The fish caught are entirely pelagic or surface fish.

Since the EU has run into problems with the depletion of fish stocks in European waters due to unsustainable fishing policies and the abuse of those policies, it has reached agreements individually with six countries of West Africa to enable the EU to fish in West African waters. Those agreements were reached in 1985. Owing to the widespread abuse of the agreements, the West African countries concerned have formed a sub-regional fisheries commission with its HQ in Dakar in Senegal. Even with the weight of that commission there is still widespread abuse.

The Gambia, which is a desperately poor country with no fleet, has no control over the trawlers which fish off its coast. As a result, the trawlers—they are principally Spanish and French but the pirate trawlers, which have no agreements, come from Korea, Thailand and Russia—are fishing not only the deep water fish but the surface fish which they reject and throw back dead into the sea.

There is evidence that agreements on the mesh size of the trawlers' nets are abused so that more fish are caught than is sustainable. There is evidence of abuse in terms of fishing within agreed limits off the coast. Each trawler has a Gambian observer on board but many of those people do not have the training or influence to have any real impact on abuses. Any reports of abuses are sent to the Fisheries Department, but legal action is slow and it rarely results in compensation. The nets of the local fishermen are either lost or badly damaged by the trawlers and the fishermen receive no compensation.

There is evidence that fish stocks are already being depleted from West African waters. It now takes fishermen 12 hours to fill their boats. Five years ago it took them five hours and they could make two trips a day to sea. The cost of a bowl of fish to women on the beach has risen from the equivalent of 30p. to £1.20 in five years. Unless action is taken to police the agreements made by the EU with the West African countries and prevent piracy by other nations, there will be a further fall in fish stocks which will have a devastating impact on the nutritional status of children and adults in Gambia in the next few years. In addition, the impact on the internal economy and livelihoods of people throughout Gambia will be catastrophic.

I have given that rather lengthy description of the problem because when reading about Gunjur I found an extraordinary resonance of its problems with those described in the committee's report. That truly shows that the problem is world-wide.

The report makes an encouraging statement in paragraph 2.2. that:

"the downward spiral … is not yet irreversible".

We must all hope that that statement is correct. If the downward spiral is to be reversed, the committee's report will certainly provide a first-class basis for the necessary action to be taken.

My Lords, I have studied the report that we have discussed today. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and the members of his committee on their valuable work in identifying the most important issues facing the fishing industry world-wide.

Perhaps I may reply immediately to two noble Lords. Disappointingly, I must write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, because I do not have to hand the figure for which he asked. However, the news is better for my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. I am happy to confirm that the Government will send the report to the governments of other countries in the European Union, if that is the wish of the committee.

Much has been said today about the common fisheries policy. My noble friend Lord Radnor asked about withdrawal from the CFP. I do not believe that withdrawal is a realistic option. We need a common European fisheries policy. The CFP provides a more effective forum than existed previously for international co-operation on the conservation and management of fish stocks. Such co-operation is essential given the over-capacity of fishing fleets and the fact that fish stocks do not respect national boundaries.

There are other important benefits. However, what we are focusing on today is the scope for improvement. The CFP is far from perfect. Critically, it has not succeeded in providing the stability of fishing opportunities that was hoped for. It has not sufficiently responded to rapid changes in fishing technology and has failed to prevent the over-exploitation of stocks so that many have not been able to recover naturally.

The scientists tell us that almost 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters we fish have now been reduced to a level where there is a risk of biological collapse. That is not a prediction that they will collapse. But it is a warning that, if the present level of fishing continues, there is a risk that the reproductive potential of the stocks will collapse. What is at stake is the future of the European fishing industry.

The Government therefore fully agree with the key message of the Select Committee's report; that all over the world stocks of fish are being severely depleted by overfishing and that action needs to be taken to reduce the pressure on stocks.

The Government have sent to the committee a detailed memorandum responding to each of its recommendations. I do not have time to go through all those this afternoon so I will concentrate on the main themes identified by the committee: the scientific basis of fisheries policy, the need for a precautionary approach to fishery management, the need for improved communication between scientists, fishermen and others, and the importance of fish stock conservation.

Perhaps I may outline the Government's policy on each of those issues and the way in which it is working to achieve improvements to the CFP and fisheries management in the world at large. I hope that at the same time I can answer points raised by your Lordships. First, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Government attach great weight to the work done by fisheries scientists.

This is reflected in the large budget they commit to fisheries science each year as the foundation for European management policies. The UK is a major contributor to the fisheries work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and government fisheries scientists are held in high regard internationally. The Government will continue to base their policies on sound fisheries science and certainly support the committee's recommendation that scientific advice should be presented clearly and concisely.

To those who say that the science is routinely ignored under the CFP, I would draw their attention to the fact that, based on the scientific advice, the December 1995 Fisheries Council cut total allowable catches (TACs) for some 28 different stocks of fish in order to reduce the pressure on those stocks.

Secondly, the precautionary approach is fundamental to sustainable management of fish stocks. The Government therefore fully supported two major international initiatives last year: the adoption of the UN Agreement on Straddling and High Migratory Fish Stocks and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Those both apply the precautionary approach to conservation, management and exploitation of fish stocks within coastal zones and in international waters.

Within the CFP the Select Committee's report rightly stresses the need for fishing effort to be reduced. Conservation policy requires a combination of measures to limit exploitation rates, including output limitations in the form of total allowable catches and input limitations such as the reduction of fleet size.

I have already referred to the need to be ready to adjust TACs in the light of scientific advice. Reducing the capacity of fishing fleets must also remain a top priority since our fishermen cannot have a viable long-term future unless the fleet is properly structured in relation to the available fishing opportunities.

In that context, I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and other noble Lords about the Government's response to the committee's report. I can assure your Lordships that we are far from complacent about the matter. Early last year we more than doubled the amount of money for our decommissioning programme, bringing the total to £53 million in the period 1997–98. But the problems of excess capacity and effort have to be tackled on a common basis by all who fish the same stocks. That is why decisions in the next series of multi-annual guidance programmes, on which the Commission will be making an initial presentation at next week's fisheries council, have such a critical importance.

In the weeks ahead member states will have the benefit of new scientific assessments of what needs to be done together with a report on a consultation exercise involving 35 separate meetings with the industry around Europe, including seven in the UK. Therefore, we shall address those problems with all the seriousness and urgency that they merit in the negotiations which are about to start.

It would clearly not make sense to try to anticipate the outcome at this stage other than to reiterate our commitment to securing a deal in the best long-term interest of all who depend on sustainable and economically viable fish stocks. In response to a question by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I can tell him that the three decommissioning schemes so far will have removed 6.6 per cent. of fleet capacity.

The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, referred to the disposal of decommissioned vessels to developing countries where there is a need to protect traditional subsistence fisheries from commercial fisheries. The Government recognise that concern and they require British decommissioned vessels to be made unseaworthy so that our surplus fishing capacity is not exported to developing countries or anywhere else.

That brings me to the Select Committee's third theme: the need for improved communication. That is an important point and, apart from the meetings to which I have just referred, the Government have a number of initiatives in hand.

At the domestic level, the Government have initiated a series of regular contacts between industry representatives and fisheries scientists in order to increase fishermen's understanding of the work done by the scientists and to give the industry the opportunity to question the scientists and contribute their own expertise. This will be followed up by meetings between the industry and our scientists in advance of formulating our annual input into the international scientific advice on the state of different fish stocks. Those contacts are intended to result in better-informed decisions and a better understanding of how decisions on fisheries management are reached.

At the Community level, my honourable friend the Fisheries Minister will use the opportunity of next week's Fisheries Council to propose the introduction of regional consultative committees to bring together fishermen and officials from the member states active in a particular fishery to discuss issues relevant to that fishery; for example, the most suitable conservation measures and the state of the stocks.

At the global level, the Government held an international workshop at the end of last year to discuss ways of improving co-ordination among international agencies concerned with management of the oceans. The Government are taking the workshop conclusions forward through the Commission on Sustainable Development and this is a good example of the close co-operation that exists between the fisheries departments and the Department of the Environment.

The Select Committee's fourth theme was fish stock conservation. Much of what I have already said is clearly relevant to this theme. But I would like briefly to outline further initiatives which the Government are pursuing.

The committee drew attention to the need for urgent consideration of the scope for further technical measures which can help conserve stocks and reduce discards. In fact, the Government set up a fisheries conservation group earlier this year to do just that. The group is made up of members of the fishing industry, scientists and other government experts. It has looked at the points raised by the committee in its report and we plan to carry out consultations on the basis of the group's conclusions in the near future.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Perry, that the Government attach particular priority to reducing discards, which are wasteful of fisheries resources. Progress in reducing fishing effort will make a major contribution. We maintain a wide-ranging research programme on the selectivity of fishing gear and future improvements in selectivity will also cut the level of discarding. In addition the Government will be examining with the industry the possibility of closing areas to fishing when juvenile fish predominate in the catch. We are participating in discussions with Norway and other countries to look at all the options for reducing discards.

The committee also drew attention to industrial fisheries. We need to increase our understanding of the impact of these fisheries on other stocks and on the wider marine ecosystem. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that at next week's Fisheries Council my honourable friend the Fisheries Minister will therefore be calling for a collaborative research effort on the multi-species aspect of industrial fisheries. He will also be calling for the introduction of a precautionary TAC for the huge sand eel fishery. I have one last "goodie" for the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He mentioned the basking shark. I understand that the single vessel of the fishermen to whom he referred has been decommissioned. Therefore, the sharks seem to be able to swim in peace.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that matter. I had tabled Questions on that subject and that was the information which I had received. Your Lordships may remember the Question because I pointed out that the shark is absolutely harmless and its bask is worse than its bite!

My Lords, in conclusion I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that of course we are aware of the dangers which surround the future of fish and fisheries. The Government's policy is to promote more efficient and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources to benefit both the UK industry and the marine environment.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in this afternoon's debate. Their contributions, together with the Select Committee's report, will, I am sure, help all those involved in the fishing industry and in managing fish resources to focus more effectively on what is required of them before it is too late, so that we are able to prevent a collapse of stocks near to home, such as happened in the case of the Grand Banks cod stock.

Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I too am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this afternoon's debate. I should like to make two brief points. First, I do not withdraw my criticism of the Government's written report that it is both complacent and lacking any sense of urgency. I am delighted to hear the Minister assure me that the Government are not complacent and that they do have a sense of urgency. I shall look for evidence of that fact in the next few months.

Secondly, I suspect that the impact of the risk to the fish stocks of the world will last longer and be of vastly greater importance than the current apparent risk to beef supplies which the House will discuss next. The degree of public awareness of the problems in relation to fish stocks seems to be tiny compared with public awareness of the risks to beef stocks.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement reads as follows:

"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on BSE.

"In my previous Statement of 3rd April I stated that there were signs that confidence was returning. I am very pleased to tell the House that matters have continued to improve. The latest reports I have are that consumption is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels. That is encouraging as it is only by restoring confidence in beef that the industry's future will be secured for the long term. The measures that I am about to announce are geared to the achievement of that aim.

"I have consistently made it clear that the Government are determined to ensure a viable future of the essential sectors in the beef chain; that is, farmers, the slaughterhouse sector, manufacturers and renderers.

"I take farmers first. I announced on 28th March that the EU calf premium scheme would be opened in the UK. The scheme will open next week and will be run by the Intervention Board. Slightly over £100 will be paid for each qualifying calf.

"The House is aware that animals slaughtered at 30 months of age or more are now excluded from the food chain and of the expectation that farmers would be compensated by the EC scheme. I can announce today that this will now come into effect in the week beginning 29th April and will also be run by the Intervention Board. Depending on the weight of their animals, farmers could receive nearly £500 per animal, effectively the cull cow price. The Government will bear the costs of slaughter and destruction of the animals.

"I recognise that some producers of steers and heifers plan to bring their animals to market at over 30 months and will not have had time to adjust their production systems. Such animals would typically fetch significantly more than cull cows. I am pleased to announce today that the Government will pay a nationally-funded supplement to the basic premium in respect of such steers and heifers, at a rate which reflects the historic differences between cow prices and those for steers and heifers. This supplement will be payable for six months which will allow producers time to adapt their marketing programmes to the new circumstances. The cost is likely to be up to £80 million. In general, the total return for animals over 30 months should not be greater than the market price of animals below 30 months going for consumption. The market is, however, turbulent at present. It would be helpful for producers to be clear about the position when the scheme comes into operation. Accordingly, the "top up" will be set at no less than 25 pence per kilogram for the first four weeks that the scheme is in operation.

"In the longer run we need arrangements to allow back on the market meat from those breeds—for example, specialist breeds—which often do not mature until after 30 months. Many are in herds with no history of BSE. The case for exempting animals such as these from the 30-month rule is very strong. My officials are urgently working up the technical elements of a scheme which would allow clearly defined exemptions to be made.

"I reported on 3rd April extensions in the coverage of beef intervention. On 12th April a further widening of the categories of intervention applicable in the UK and the removal of weight limits were agreed. For the first time, intervention on young bulls will be possible in the United Kingdom.

"More generally, I am also pursuing with food retailers and manufacturers ideas for quality assurance schemes to help restore confidence in British beef. As a result, I am able to announce that we are urgently proceeding with arrangements to improve animal identification and traceability. I hope to be in a position to introduce a system of mandatory animal passports for this purpose with effect from 1st June. That will make a valuable contribution to the development of marketing strategies by retailers and manufacturers to persuade consumers that our beef is of the highest quality.

"I believe that these measures taken together, in addition to those we have already announced, will provide the essential support that our beef farming sector needs.

"So far as manufacturers are concerned, on 12th April I amended the Emergency Control Order to allow imports of beef from animals over 30 months of age produced in certain third countries traditionally supplying the UK in which there is no history of BSE. That was necessary to prevent closures in parts of the meat manufacturing industry that for technical reasons are heavily dependent on imports of older beef. I should emphasise that my decision to lift the ban on imports does not apply to imports from EU countries.

"I turn now to the slaughtering sector. In my recent Statements, I have informed the House of the additional resources that we are giving to the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure rigorous enforcements of the rules on hygiene in slaughterhouses, in particular on SBOs. We have now received a report from Coopers & Lybrand who were appointed on 4th April to quantify the economic difficulties facing the slaughterhouse sector. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of their report, with minor excisions for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Coopers & Lybrand have concluded that there is a substantial "blockage" of unsold meat in the slaughtering sector, valued at some £132 million at pre-crisis price levels, which is undermining the financial viability of many companies to the extent that, in the absence of action, widespread company failures are likely soon. Against this background, I believe that exceptional assistance is justified.

"I can announce today that I propose to introduce an aid scheme which will inject some £110 million into the slaughtering sector. This will consist of two elements. The first is that all slaughterhouses which continue to slaughter bovines will receive payment based on their throughput of cattle in 1995–96. This payment will be made in two stages, 80 per cent. to be paid immediately and the remaining 20 per cent. in two months' time. This assistance will replace the proposal to relieve slaughterhouses from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges to which I referred on 3rd April. Assistance will be paid at the rate of around £8.75 for every bovine slaughtered during 1995–96, giving a total of £30 million to he paid under this head.

"The second is that the Government will introduce arrangements for purchasing and disposal of the blockage, which has already been identified and audited under the supervision of Coopers & Lybrand. The Intervention Board will purchase these stocks at a valuation of 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price and will take responsibility for their secure disposal. The board will enter into urgent discussions with the trade associations on the detailed mechanisms.

"We estimate that the total cost of this second aid will be some £80 million, making £110 million in aid overall.

"Pending parliamentary approval, which will be sought by way of Supplementary Estimates, necessary expenditure for this and the top-up payment to producers of animals over 30 months old, to which I referred a few moments ago, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

"The slaughtering sector was recognised, before the latest crisis, to have substantial over-capacity and Coopers & Lybrand have confirmed that view. Rationalisation is therefore necessary. The substantial package of support that I have announced should, however, provide a breathing space during which companies can adjust to the new market circumstances and make rational decisions about their future operations. Without this support, we risked the disorderly collapse of a sector upon which a secure and efficient beef supply chain crucially depends.

"I am, of course, aware that there may be other sectors which also have stocks which they cannot bring to market. The support that I have announced today is, however, based on the particular circumstances and the role of the slaughtering sector. The Government do not therefore consider that equivalent assistance should be paid to other sectors. In the interests of public health and market confidence I am, however, asking the Intervention Board to accept responsibility for disposal of unsaleable stocks currently held in the United Kingdom at Government expense, if requested to do so.

"The waste material, offals and carcass meat resulting from the actions that I am announcing today will be treated primarily by rendering, with the resultant material to be disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. The ways and means of this are being discussed urgently with the industries concerned.

"This indicates the importance of the rendering industry to the beef chain. I announced previously a temporary subsidy for renderers and first payments will be made this week.

"Madam Speaker, the announcements I have made provide a comprehensive system of support for the essential links in the beef chain. They should enable the industries to plan ahead for the future with confidence.

"However, there are two other aspects on which the House will wish to know the Government's position. I refer to the EC ban on UK exports and the possibility of selective culling to accelerate the decline in incidence of BSE.

"So far as the ban is concerned, the Government will make every effort to secure its speedy elimination by whatever means are most likely to prove effective, including a legal challenge in the European Court of Justice shortly.

"So far as selective culling is concerned, my experts are looking carefully at whether a cost effective scheme could be devised. This remains to be seen. However, I should say at once that the picture that some have painted of a mass slaughtering policy involving millions of cattle and a large proportion of the British herd is wholly unreal. The Government have no intention of adopting any such measure which would be altogether unacceptable on many grounds. The models we are looking at involve limited numbers of individual animals—in the low tens of thousands, and not hundreds of thousands, far less the millions which are sometimes described—and do not provide for the slaughter of whole herds.

"If an acceptable scheme can be devised—that is, one which is likely to reduce the incidence of BSE significantly at acceptable cost—then the Government will consult on the details with all those interested before taking matters forward. So far as implementation is concerned, we would only go ahead if we were satisfied that to do so was to the clear benefit of the UK beef industry; for example, if there was a direct understanding about the lifting of the EC ban.

"The past few weeks have been a period of great concern for all those who work in the beef industry. As a Member of this House representing a rural constituency, I share the very real anxiety felt by all those who farm and whose livelihoods depend on the beef industry. The extensive package of measures I have announced today should go a long way to reassuring farmers and other essential sectors of the beef industry that they can rely on the full support of the Government in this their hour of need".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement that was made in another place by his right honourable friend. As always, I declare an interest in that the farming company with which I am involved has dairy cattle and we shall be involved in the cull cow scheme and possibly a selective slaughter scheme if one is produced.

I quote from the Statement,

"cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels".

However, I am sure the Minister is aware that this still represents a substantial problem. We have had a late, cold spring and forage stocks are running out fast. Until the cattle throughput has returned to something like its normal level, there will still be a substantial financial burden on farmers. We are pleased that the calf premium scheme is to start next week. It is slightly ironic that the Government refused to introduce the scheme to stop the export of live calves when that was proposed some time ago but a large number of those exported live calves have now been slaughtered in Holland and in France.

The nationally funded supplement to the basic premium in respect of steers and heifers is obviously welcome. However, I wonder how practical it is to say that this supplement will be payable for six months, and that that will allow producers time to adapt their marketing programmes to the new circumstances. The production of beef is not like an industrial production line. It will take a lot longer than six months for the beef producers to adjust their systems. As I understand the Statement, the top-up will be set at no less than 25p per kilogram—that is, about £125 for a 500 kilogram animal—for the first four weeks that the scheme is in operation. Is the Minister able to give us any idea what will happen after the four weeks? What do the Government think should happen then?

My next point is extremely important. Can the Government explain which Act of Parliament gives them the legal power to introduce the slaughter scheme at all? Is it introduced on grounds of animal health or on grounds of public health? We welcome the exemptions for the specialist breeds as we are all aware of the problem in that regard. It is interesting that the Government are now pursuing the idea of a quality assurance scheme. That was proposed by the Labour Party after the first Statement was made on 20th March. Your Lordships will remember that the idea was comprehensively rubbished by the Prime Minister in the other place. We are glad to see that that idea is now being accepted.

The matter of traceability is extremely important. We are pleased to note that there will be a system of mandatory animal passports. The decision to lift the ban on imports does not apply to imports from the other member states of the European Union. Are the Government confident that they can control the trade of animals which are exported from other member states and are then reimported here from third countries? As regards the slaughtering sector, the Coopers & Lybrand report states that the stocks are valued at some £132 million at pre-crisis price levels and the Government are proposing aid of £110 million. As I understand it, that means that the slaughtering sector is being asked to pick up the tab of £22 million in a short period of time. I wonder whether that will be sufficient to prevent the widespread company failures to which the Government referred.

As regards the Intervention Board arrangements to purchase the stocks which are a part of the blockage, as it were, the Government state that the Intervention Board will purchase these stocks at a valuation of 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price and will take responsibility for their secure disposal. Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means? What is meant by secure disposal? What is the method that is intended to be used to dispose of these stocks? Are they able to enter the food chain or do they have to be destroyed?

As regards the disposal of the unsaleable stocks which are currently held in the United Kingdom, the Government state that these will be cleared, but have they any idea of the compensation levels that will be paid for the unsaleable stocks? Have the Government any idea of what this will cost? There is also the overwhelming problem of the disposal of the offal from the rendering industry. The Government are considering the best practical environmental options for this. As we all know, the meat and bonemeal industry has been a massive exercise in waste disposal. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us just what environmental options the Government are considering.

On the question of the legal challenge in the European Court of Justice, we heard this morning that the NFU is proposing to sue the Government and Customs and Excise as a party of the first part, as the lawyers say. Will the Government explain how that action will march with the one which they are proposing in the European Court of Justice? Will they bring the Commission or the Council of Ministers in as a third party or will it be a separate action? How will the two actions march together? On the subject of the ban, the Government have been asked before to give the precise Community authority, by article of treaty, by regulation number or by directive, which gives the European Commission the power to impose the ban. I believe that question has been asked before but I am not sure that it has been answered.

We welcome the fact that whole herds or large numbers of animals will not be slaughtered. As the Statement correctly stated, some have painted a picture of a mass slaughter involving a large proportion of the British herd and that is unreal. I remind the House that that was a remark made by the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, on a television programme on the Sunday after the first Statement was made. It is important that if there is to be a selective slaughter system we should know about it as quickly as possible as the situation is creating uncertainty.

As regards the selective slaughter scheme and the European ban, the Statement states that so far as implementation is concerned, the Government would only go ahead in the context of a clear understanding about the lifting of the EC ban. But which comes first? If your Lordships will excuse the pun, this could be an expensive game of chicken. Can the Minister now give the final cost of this measure to the UK taxpayer after deducting the European contribution from our rebate next year? It is not easy to work that out from the Statement. What will be the final cost to the UK taxpayer when all the various complicated transfers have taken place between this country and Europe? Can he give us any idea of the global figure?

This is four weeks of the worst crisis that any of us can remember in our farming lifetimes. We shall wish to call the Government to account in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard on the Order Paper tomorrow. But at least with this Statement the Government are starting to recognise the magnitude of the problem and are beginning at last to deal with it.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is an encouragement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it has been four weeks, and during that time a number of people have suffered immense distress and financial loss. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government mean to do anything about those people who have had to sell their animals at a great loss? I see no way under this scheme that they will be compensated. Those are the people who have already suffered greatly.

I was pleased to see that the qualifications for intervention are to be widened. I always thought that the intervention scheme took in the best animals, good meat, and put out poor meat some months later. If the system is extended to take much wider categories of meat off the market, and if that is done immediately, it will help to restore normality.

The six-month period in which to alter a system of marketing older beef is too short. You cannot change a farming system in six months. The Minister may well know that it takes nine months for a calf to be born. I understand that this is an interval that you cannot speed up.

I have already said that the intervention is welcome. It is totally necessary. It must begin and must be extensive immediately.

I do not wish to go into the Statement to a great extent because we have the debate tomorrow. That will be an opportunity for everyone to study the Statement and to add that to the experience that we already have of BSE.

As regards the slaughtering section, the assistance is welcome. I hope that it will be applied quickly because the sector is in dire straits financially. This assistance will give those people some hope that the bankers may support them until they can get out of their trouble.

I welcome the fact that the Statement says that,

"the waste material, offals and carcase meat … will be treated primarily by rendering".

I hope that when it is rendered into bonemeal—it makes the most marvellous phosphatic fertiliser—the Government will ensure that mistakes in the rendering industry which precipitated this crisis are not repeated and that the system is absolutely safe.

We must all work to reverse the ban on exports. It appears to everyone quite ludicrous that Mr. Fischler should say that he will eat beef and that it is perfectly safe, while the export of beef is banned. The sooner that companies such as McDonald's which use beef go back to using British beef which is guaranteed safe, the better.

I echo my relief that the nonsense about killing every animal in Britain if necessary has now been laid to rest. This I must say. I cannot excuse the Government because the first person I heard that from was the Minister of Agriculture himself.

My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have given to today's package. Indeed, I am also grateful for the specific parts of that package to which they referred.

The criticism—I believe that it is totally unjustified—that they both decided to echo was that the Government are only now finally getting round to doing something. I remind noble Lords that this is, I believe, the fourth Statement by an agriculture Minister on this issue. In the first 20 days of this BSE saga we announced 20 measures. In the first 20 days we secured funding for rescue packages of somewhere between £500 million and £1,000 million. That is between £0.5 billion and £1 billion worth of rescue measures. We are now at about the 27th or 28th day and the number of measures is up by an equivalent figure, and so is the funding. From day 1 we were bringing forward measures and securing funds. We have acted positively and urgently throughout.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly pointed out that at 60 per cent. throughput our slaughtering sector is still well down on the activity that it requires. That is why such a large proportion of the measures that we have in place are aimed specifically at market activity. When the calf scheme, the residual beef scheme, intervention measures and all the other measures are accelerating that throughput, that 60 per cent., we hope, will rise significantly. It will also help many other related trades such as the haulage industry.

The top-up is based on a time limited six-month period. Both noble Lords queried that. We have taken advice both in England and Scotland from agricultural advisers as to the amount of time that it takes to change the feeding regime of an animal in order to bring it up to market weight prior to 30 months. We have been advised that if an animal at present is over 24 months and on a slow fattening regime, it is unlikely, whatever one does to that animal, that it could be marketed at under 30 months. However, if an animal is under 24 months today, it is possible to change the feeding regime and bring it up to a marketable weight under the age of 30 months. I remind noble Lords that we are urgently working on exemption schemes which will be specifically aimed at those breeds which are naturally slow fattening.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the minimum 25p per kilogram which has been announced for the first month is not too little; and said that we had not announced what will occur in the second month. The important point is that we wish to be able to exercise some judgment after the first month to see how things are going and whether any adjustments should be made.

The legislation that introduces this scheme is principally based on the Commission regulation which was adopted on 12th April by the Beef Management Committee. But the ban that we brought in more rapidly—it was an early and substantial measure announced by government in the early days in response to a consensus voiced from the farming community through to the retail community—on the sale of meat over 30 months old to consumers was under the emergency powers in the Food Safety Act.

The quality assurance scheme, which we regard as important, is principally as regards traceability. However, the Government have a long history of involvement. Despite the derogatory comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, throughout the agricultural departments we have a legacy of seeking to promote and stimulate quality assurance within the industry. I can speak specifically for Scotland. Along with Northern Ireland, we have the two longest and best proven track records of encouraging, through pump-priming, industry based quality assurance schemes. We recognise that while the Government may well have a principal role in traceability, the industries, which know the products and consumers best, should be the principal arbiters of what quality assurance schemes should and should not include.

As I have announced, the slaughter sector will benefit from the injection of about £110 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is quite right, the Coopers & Lybrand audit value of the stocks stuck in cold stores and chill rooms is approximately £132 million. Coopers & Lybrand have been the impartial experts and were helped by the Meat and Livestock Commission. Their report is in the Library and it states that the book value of stocks in a chill room or cold store usually achieves between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the maximum value in a normal market situation. Therefore, Coopers & Lybrand recommended 85 per cent. as being a realistic rate of return; that is the rate of return that they would normally expect. Therefore, the £110 million is a combination of the £30 million immediate injection which relates to cattle throughput plus the £80 million buying in the stock. It comes to a figure which is exactly 85 per cent. of the £132 million.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the secure disposal of some of the waste arisings of the residual beef scheme. We are confident that the existing arrangements and capacity, in the rendering industry are sufficient to deal with the new arisings. However, we are aware that, given a change in pattern and quantity, the best practical environmental option must be the option which is chosen to dispose of the arisings of the residual beef programme. We are urgently discussing those options with the experts in terms of SEAC, the regulators in terms of the environment agencies, the waste industry and the renderers themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about compensation on the unsaleable stocks in other parts of the food chain which as a government we are prepared to dispose of at our cost. He asked whether there would be some partial compensation offered for them. The important point is that the funds that we are able to bring to bear on the situation must be targeted principally at consumer confidence, market activity and ensuring that assistance is given to that part of the market which is most closely linked with activity and consumer confidence. Therefore, we have concentrated the targeting of resources at the farmers, the slaughterhouses, the cutting plants, renderers and in a sense at the consumer through the 30-month programme. We want the resources involved to be aimed at activity and confidence. What we cannot do is to spread the resources too thinly throughout the whole diverse industry and therefore lose the effect that concentration would have at the centre of the industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right. Both national farming unions of England and Scotland have threatened legal action; we shall take legal action. The extent to which there is co-ordination between the different parties taking legal action is an issue on which it is premature to comment.

The statutory basis for the EC ban on UK exports (Commission decision 96/239) is as follows. It was adopted by the Standing Veterinary Committee acting under Council Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zoo technical checks on intra-Community trade in animals, animal products and meat. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the statutory basis further, we could do so possibly in correspondence or perhaps in the debate which the House will have tomorrow.

The final cost to the UK taxpayer will no doubt be substantial. However, the industry is absolutely essential to UK agriculture. It is especially large around the fringes of the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, knows, in Scotland the cattle livestock industry comprises 30 per cent. of our entire agricultural product. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs depend on the beef industry. Therefore, although the final cost will become apparent when more .judgments can be made and more decisions taken, at the moment it is too soon to say, but we are confident that the money involved, if well targeted, will be well spent.

The last point is on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that McDonalds and similar chains should buy British beef once again. We have always said that and continue to say it. If the commissioner himself—and I believe that President Santer is of the same opinion—says that UK beef is safe to eat, then we cannot understand why certain large multiple buyers are not following that advice. In the light of those comments, it makes an irrational and disproportionate ban look totally ludicrous.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are grateful to him for repeating the Statement? Speaking for myself, I found it extremely reassuring and it seems to me that, faced with an enormously difficult situation, the Government have got a grip on it. I am greatly cheered by the manner in which my noble friend dealt with the issue and with his indication of the way in which the Government are handling an extremely difficult issue.

I have one question for the Minister. It relates to the ban by the Europeans on the export of British beef which is absolutely intolerable. Will my noble friend make it clear that, unless the ban is lifted speedily, we shall retaliate against other European financial activities, many of which are vulnerable to British retaliation?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the reassurance that he sees in today's Statement and the measures which we have announced today. I genuinely agree with him that we have got a grip on a difficult situation. I repeat that over the past 28 days we have introduced a series of measures, some of which span consumer confidence, some of which cover market activity; others cover the farmers, renderers or slaughterhouse industry. Some specifically cover animal or human health. With the measures brought forward numbering between 20 and 30, we have sought urgently and positively to get a grip of the situation.

The ban is intolerable. We will not accept the status quo. We will seek to negotiate a rapid and fair removal of the ban. We will also seek legal action to remove it; at the end of the day there is no scientific basis for it. That fact has now been admitted by the agriculture commissioner himself.

My Lords, I find myself puzzled by the Statement and wonder whether the Minister can help me. I ask this in all innocence as I know nothing about farming; I only understand human medicine somewhat imperfectly. It is extremely welcome to hear the Minister say that the intention is probably only to cull relatively few cattle, perhaps tens of thousands. Will the Minister explain to us how the cull is chosen? I do not understand how the diagnosis is made and on what basis the cull will be carried out. To what extent will the animals be examined to ascertain whether they are free of the disease? What risk is there of culling animals which are perfectly innocent of the infection? Forgive me for asking a naive question, but I do not understand the basis for the cull and I should be grateful for clarification.

My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely good question. He was unnecessarily modest about his knowledge of human medicine which, as the House knows, is considerable. We have not committed ourselves to any selective cull. Although our colleagues among other European agriculture ministers would like us to produce a programme by 30th April, we will only produce such a programme if it makes sense. We are currently examining the possibility of a very tightly targeted culling of those animals that are most at risk of incubating BSE. If such a programme could deliver a very much accelerated decrease in the incidence of BSE—of course, it is already decreasing at a significant rate—taking us closer and closer to eradication, it may well be worth it. There will be a cost to the industry from any such programme. We want to make sure that that cost is also taken into account when one is seeking to measure the benefits.

At the centre of the noble Lord's contribution is the inescapable question which seems beyond the comprehension of some of our European colleagues; namely, the scientists have said there is no justification in pursuing such a policy. Therefore, we shall have to convince ourselves before we pursue it that there will be benefits not yet identified by veterinary advisers.

I stress to the House that a second, absolutely critical benefit without which we will not institute any such cull is the lifting of the ban.

My Lords, can my noble friend help me? I declare an interest as a farmer. I do not have any beef cattle, even though my farm has 350 fat cattle waiting to go to slaughter. What other hypotheses are the Government looking for in relation to the possible connection between BSE and CJD? So far as I am aware—and perhaps my noble friend will confirm this—there is absolutely no evidence whatever of species jump, except orally from scrapie-fed mice to mice.

Will the Government please look at other hypotheses? This is very important, considering the very small number of CJD cases that there have been. Furthermore, what evidence do they have that the 10 new cases of CJD in young people are CJD and not another encephalopathy disease? Considering that Creutzfeldt-Jakob's first discovery of CJD was, I believe, in a 28 year-old, it is possibly nothing new that it happens to young people.

Secondly, can my noble friend be of greater assistance on the legal basis for the ban on the selling of cattle over 30 months? He accepts, by the fact that some cattle over 30 months can be eaten, that it is not dangerous to eat cattle over 30 months. Therefore there can be no threat to human health. Presumably, therefore, the Food Safety Act does not apply.

If it is accepted that there is no danger to human health from BSE, what right at all had the European Community to introduce Decision 96/239? If it had no right, why do we not simply ignore it, in the same way as we are ignoring feeding Emtryl to pheasants? If the Community is doing something that is obviously and palpably extra-legal, why pay a blind bit of notice to it in the first place?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. No threat to human health has been identified by the scientists from eating beef that has come from animals over 30 months old where they have been processed in such a way that slaughterhouse rules have been followed and where, according to the first SEAC recommendation, they are deboned. The Government want to return to that position as quickly as possible. Therefore, as I stressed both today and on other occasions, we see the European ban on our exports as unjust, ludicrous and irrational, and as one that should be the target not only of negotiation but indeed of legal action by ourselves in the European Court of Justice.

I return with some trepidation to the scientific inquiries of my noble friend. As many in this House with a scientific background will be aware, scientists are slow to come forward with categoric assurances of 100 per cent. safety. I can tell my noble friend that SEAC has examined all the angles. An in-depth review of each of the cases of the new CJD variant and consideration of other possible causes—such as cases being identified merely because of increased awareness of the disease on the part of doctors—has failed to give an adequate explanation for the new form of CJD. On current data, and in the absence of any credible alternative, the most likely explanation is that cases are limited to BSE before the introduction of the SBO ban in 1989.

The Government accept what the scientists have told us; namely, that their conclusions are based on only a likelihood. There remains no direct evidence of a link between BSE and CJD—neither the initial CJD symptoms nor the new symptoms. In that sense, the risk is still theoretical. However, on the subject of BSE the Government have always undertaken to protect the public from any theoretical risk as well as any that is subsequently proven. Therefore we are happy to be guided by SEAC, which represents the greatest concentration of expertise on this subject. We are not happy, however, to be guided by some of the over-reactions that we have seen from our European colleagues, or indeed from some commentators in the media.

My Lords, there is a question that I want to put to the Minister about the Intervention Board. However, first, may I say that I welcome the statement that the measures will apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. Those who know anything about farming will know the pronounced and very distinctive regional differences in farming practice in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those practices throw up many problems in administration and in forms of legislation.

The fact that the Intervention Board is central to the present situation will not cure everything in connection with the present crisis. Will the Minister explain whether the Intervention Board will be governed by the Ministry of Agriculture and be subject to parliamentary control in all its aspects? That is important in respect of any equity, sense of justice or meeting demands in respect of regional difficulties as they appear today in this crisis.

I can reassure the noble Lord, in that the Intervention Board is managed by the four agriculture departments: those of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Therefore the judgments they make and the management systems they devise to cope with the new programmes will reflect the circumstances so far as is possible in the different territories.

I am grateful that the noble Lord intervened. As I suggested earlier, the beef industry in Northern Ireland is of absolute importance to the economy there. It is therefore important that, so far as possible, the rescue packages we introduce for the farming community and the slaughter and processing community are applicable to the beneficiaries there.

There is always a balance to be struck between a system which is very complex and sophisticated in order to recognise every individual circumstance of every farmyard, versus a system that can be quickly implemented and seen through in terms of getting payments to beneficiaries and which involves some generalisations having to be made.

Everyone in the House will acknowledge the urgency of delivering aid as quickly as possible to those who are under pressure. Therefore, some generalisations and presumptions will have to be made about the width of circumstances to be found in different territories. But they will be aimed at the average recipient.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, he did not rule out the fact that cull cows will be slaughtered and disposed of; and that that is the main disposal that takes place under the scheme? Will he accept that I welcome the scheme and agree with him that, under the arrangements for fattening those cattle that are now over two and a half years-old, it should be possible for the system to be changed within the time limit he has laid down? In this horrendous business, which I suspect will not be the last, given what goes on in the food world at the moment and the scares that go around, it is absolutely vital that we think through what else may happen and how to communicate. Perhaps on top of all that politicians and others in the media should take a grip on themselves and realise the damage that can be done to people's living and confidence and that this is a much bigger issue than the terrible business we are in at the moment, which must be dealt with on a long-term basis.

My Lords, my noble friend makes a most telling point when he emphasises the fact that such talk can cost lives and livelihoods. The unguarded accusations and allegations made within the political system and the media, but in many other places as well, are totally uncalled for. If only those who sought to comment or suggest that they had expert comment to make had confined themselves to the conclusions reached by the experts on SEAC, I do not believe the scare would have been so damaging.

The wider question raised by my noble friend is how generally we seek to deal with such food scares, given that there probably will be other similar—not, it is to be hoped, of similar proportions—situations which cast doubt over something which we all otherwise trust. The Government will certainly be looking at that and would welcome advice and suggestions from other parties.

I can confirm to my noble friends that the cull cow programme or the residual beef programme, which simply seeks to keep out of the human food chain the meat arising from carcasses of animals that are over 30 months old, is the main disposal programme. Therefore, the selective cull about which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke is simply an option which we are looking at and we are not committed to it in any way at all. I welcome my noble friend's reassurance that the six-month rule on top-up should be sufficient. There will possibly be some specific cases in which people will feel unjustly treated by that, but we have taken advice from the Scottish agricultural colleges, ADAS and others in order to ensure that it is principally a fair system.

My Lords, from this side of the House I congratulate the Minister on the expertise and courtesy that he has shown in dealing with questions on this very difficult subject. In doing so, perhaps I may revert to a question that has already been asked by my noble friend in regard to the nature of the proceedings which are contemplated.

Does the Minister agree that an action which may take a couple of years to be heard is scarcely likely to relieve the present problem? Are his legal advisers, who, I am sure, are extremely competent, considering the question of a speedy application of what corresponds to our injunction restraining the European Community from the ban?

My Lords, I am grateful for the initial comments made by the noble Lord. We realise that in the normal course of events the European Court of Justice action could take up to two years. We would seek an interim judgment before that time. However, I suspect that never have so many government lawyers and legal advisers applied their minds to one single subject so much as they are to the European ban that is so unjustified. Therefore, any other avenues which promise a speedier conclusion will indeed be pursued.

My Lords, I speak for many in this House when I thank my noble friend the Minister for the considered Statement. At long last, there is an injection of science into the situation. My profession has been monitoring the situation very carefully and is very glad of the Statement on BSE and what is proposed, having heard the Minister in the other place.

However, there are one or two issues to raise, without pre-empting the debate tomorrow. We are glad that compensation is to be paid for the culling of more ancient animals. But it seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to slaughter something in the order of 15,000 animals per week when in fact the number of cases of BSE will now be about 200 and in two year's time about 60 per week. We particularly welcome the logical approach to the beef herd, where breeds of various kinds are not the appropriate breeds to have a 30 month cut-off point. I am sure that the quality assurance scheme will be most welcome to many beef breeders, as will the animal passport scheme. We welcome the Statement, and hope that we shall have further information later.

My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's considerable expertise in the veterinary field and trust that he will make a contribution to the debate tomorrow so that we can hear more of his wisdom. He welcomed the injection of science. The whole saga started off on the basis of science and was blown off course by some rather idle comment. Rather than welcoming the injection of science, I hope that he welcomes the return to a more scientific foundation.

Let me say to my noble friend and to the British Veterinary Association—that they lament the fact that we have to slaughter 15,000 cattle a week but that they are muddled. With the residual beef programme or the cull cow programme we are taking those cattle which anyway are coming to market to be slaughtered in the normal course of their working life and excluding them from the food chain. So, no animal under the cull cow programme will be slaughtered before that point in time at which it would have been slaughtered in normal farming practices.

rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 25th March be approved.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the scheme. I must say that with the fisheries, BSE, and now this scheme, we cannot complain about a lack of variety in the agricultural brief. The scheme relates to nitrate vulnerable zones. If the Minister has fallen into a slurry lagoon, he is lucky to be here at all. I understand that it is almost universally fatal to do so.

Clearly, any grant aid in this area is welcome. But the Minister will be aware that, for example, the NFU is not impressed by either the percentage of aid-25 per cent.—or the maximum expenditure limit of £85,000. I had intended to ask the Minister to indicate the rationale behind the 25 per cent. and £85,000. I am sure that it was carefully worked out. However, he gave the answer when he said that it is all that can be afforded within the constraints on public expenditure. It would be helpful to know whether there are any other reasons for the figures other than pressure from the Treasury.

Perhaps the Minister can say also why the grant aid does not extend to farm vehicles which are needed for transport of the slurry. The Minister mentioned that but, as I understand it, grant aid does not apply to farm vehicles.

If I understand correctly, the annual budget of £800,000 for the scheme implies gross expenditure by farmers of £3.2 million at a 25 per cent. grant rate. I believe the Minister said that the department estimates that 700 farmers are likely to benefit. If that is correct, it would seem a substantial expenditure. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position and what the average amount of grant is likely to be. It looks as though it will be in the order of £10,000 per farm, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

We should not forget that the Government removed grants for improving or installing farm-waste facilities from the farm and conservation grant scheme. Obviously the scheme before us today only restores grant aid to the 7,500 farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones, of whom the Minister says only around 700 are likely to benefit. How many farmers therefore are outside the scope of the scheme? In other words, what is the potential pollution problem that the scheme does not address outside the nitrate vulnerable zones?

On the question of free ADAS advice, I should declare an interest as president of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. There have been long discussions with the department over the business of free ADAS advice and certainly individual consultants who are able to provide the advice feel unfairly treated when ADAS is offering it free. They feel it is unfair competition. I thought the Minister would like to know that.

My Lords, the necessity for the scheme is completely and utterly unscientifically based. The reason for it is because the EC decided that a 50 mg. limit of methaeglobinaemia—shortened to MGA—if it is not established, will produce stomach cancer in humans and the possibility of blue babies. There has been one instance of blue babies in this country since 1972 and it is extremely easy to cure with one injection. Research at Aberdeen University completely and utterly exploded the connection between nitrates and stomach cancer.

The European Community therefore, in its wisdom, introduced a directive for which there is absolutely no scientific reasoning. I showed the Minister the article in the chartered surveyors' magazine and also the article by Christopher Booker in the Daily Mail. I felt it only fair to give him some warning of what I intended to say.

Of course, we cannot ask that the scheme be stopped. But it is extraordinary that we are putting into legislation something which will cost the farming industry and the taxpayer a lot of money for no conceivable health benefit whatever. One farmer, Mr. Horvath, has to change his whole farming process because of the possible danger of nitrate run-off from his farm into the local river. Upstream of him the local sewage works is putting into the river far higher levels of nitrates and yet is not affected at all.

Will the Government please, please, occasionally get a grip on some of the directives which come out of Brussels for which there is no conceivable scientific or logical basis? I am laying aside for the moment, only temporarily, anything to do with BSE which has also shown that to be the case.

My Lords, I shall not hold up the proceedings for long. It is a little illogical that 1.5 million acres have been designated as NVZs, large parts of which have no nitrate problem at all. For some extraordinary reason—to suit the water companies or some other government creations—they are being designated as nitrate vulnerable zones. That is entirely wrong.

Considering that one may be forced to alter one's farming system and pay out up to £85,000, the grant is not very generous, particularly if one is in an area of low nitrates. I cannot believe that this is a logical scheme. It certainly does not appear logical to those farmers with low nitrate exposure who are being put to such expense with what is a lower rate of subsidy.

My Lords, unfortunately I did not arrive in time to hear the beginning of my noble friend's remarks and he may already have answered this question. Can he say whether all other member states are as far ahead in implementing the directive as we are?

My Lords, I am not certain of the answer to the last question. My understanding is that some are well ahead of us. Indeed, some other countries decided to designate their entire land surface as nitrate vulnerable zones whereas we have taken the attitude, which I hope will please my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, of being as selective as possible.

In some areas the nitrate problem was patchy—one borehole would have it and the next would not. Rather than designate an area like a patchwork quilt, with a few hectares at a time, some in a zone and some not, we took the decision to designate the entire geological structure. That will include some individual boreholes and areas where there is no nitrate problem inside the nitrate vulnerable zone. But that was done for reasons of convenience and operability of the scheme and has nothing whatever to do with the effects on any water companies. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, of that.

With regard to the other comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I discussed these before when we addressed the question of the directive. The limit of 50 milligrammes per litre has been set by the World Health Organisation and is widely regarded by it and by the European Community as the right level. I do not think it is the level we would necessarily choose for ourselves—we might well go for a higher level—but it is a level which has become established and for which there is reasonable evidence. Nitrate is a pollutant. It is not a good idea to let it go on rising to high levels in water supplies. If it rose beyond 50 milligrammes per litre we would expect to see an increase in blue baby syndrome. We do not have it at the moment because there is little water with dangerous levels of nitrate. Having a lot of nitrate going into the river system affects the ecology of the rivers and the estuaries. That is something on which we wish to keep a reasonable control, so to an extent we are addressing the problem before it has occurred as a preventive measure rather than waiting for the problem to occur and then having to pick up some environmental or human health catastrophe. Given the previous business today, that is something the House should welcome, even if it requires some small costs for a small number of farmers at present.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right to say that the levels of grant have been determined by the amount of money available. However, I am sure he recognises that both his party and mine accept the polluter pays principle. I am sure he would recognise that in most industries the Government make no contribution whatever to the amount of money needed to introduce pollution control measures. I am sure he would recognise that a shed full of pigs producing large quantities of slurry on an intensive system is a polluter and that it should not be regarded as being in quite the same category as an extensive farming enterprise, which we are confident will not be affected at all by the restraints in this measure. If you are keeping a totally extensive farming system with livestock, you will not be exceeding the limits set down under the directive.

My Lords, is a herd of 100 dairy cows an intensive farming system?

My Lords, the problem with dairy cows comes because the farmer will tend to keep them inside during the winter and the system will be intensive for that period. If you are running a farmyard manure-based system, you will probably be totally unaffected by the directive. If you are running a slurry-based system and are in the habit of spreading the slurry on the land every other week during the course of the winter, you will be affected by it. Farmyard manure does not leach over the winter; slurry does. So it is a question of controlling the amount of pollution you are producing. You do not necessarily have to look at building a slurry lagoon if you can transfer to a manure-based system.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why the scheme does not apply to vehicles. In any livestock system vehicles will be required and will be in existence anyway for spreading. To the extent that they are not specialist spreading vehicles, they will be vehicles with many other purposes. We are looking at focusing the grants on the particular requirements of putting in manure and slurry storage facilities.

The noble Lord calculated the grant at £10,000 per farmer on average. If the scheme lasts for its full term, that might be about the right figure. We shall see what level of demand there is and we shall see how long it lasts. But we certainly envisage seeing it through until the end of the century.

The noble Lord bewailed the fact that those who know that where there is muck there is brass had been deprived of their additional income. I take note of that fact. I shall talk to my colleagues and hope that we will not repeat that mistake in the future.

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like him to clarify what the World Health Organisation said. I have information before me saying that the World Health Organisation published a book which dealt with the 50 milligramme per litre limit on nitrates in drinking water and said that the cancer risk of higher levels of nitrate is not scientifically proven. The sole reason for the 50 milligrammes per litre limit was the extraordinarily long word which I cannot even attempt to pronounce the second time around. This again is the blue baby syndrome. My noble friend has not answered my central point. Why are we accepting directives from the European Community for which there is absolutely no scientific need? He has not answered that point and it is a very important one.

My Lords, it is not a case of there being no scientific need. It is clear that there is a disease called blue baby syndrome or methaeglobinaemia. That is an awful compound word which is extremely difficult to get out even if one can spell it, which I am not sure I can. There is such a disease. It occurs in babies where there are high nitrate levels in water. There are no other known dangers of nitrate to human consumption. It is clearly something which is not part of the natural human diet and we should try to avoid stuffing large quantities of it into human drinking water and then find out in 20 years' time that there is a nasty consequence of having lots of it around. It is reasonable to take precautions against polluting when we do not know what the consequences will be. The costs of it to us, applying, as we are, the directive in the most careful possible way, are extremely small.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the orders in any of their aspects. Indeed, we on this side of the House very much welcome them. As the Minister is fully aware, the Labour Party supports the enlargement of the European Union. Of course, the partnership and co-operation agreements do not amount to anything like full-scale membership, but they are a first step in closer relations between the countries of central and eastern Europe and the countries which were once part of the Soviet Union. I agree with everything that the Minister said about the extent to which agreements of this kind help to bind those countries to the West and to support them in their legitimate wish to have sustained democracies and to achieve economic prosperity through market economies. They also provide new opportunities for British business both to trade and invest in those countries. I hope that British firms will take up those opportunities.

I have one or two questions for the Minister. Can she say a little more about the similar agreements that are being prepared for other republics in the former Soviet Union? Which ones are now in preparation? What is the likely timetable? Can she give a little more indication as to the main criteria being used in deciding which of the other former republics will be next in line? There is probably quite a long queue, and many of those countries now want to strengthen their links with the European Union.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two slightly more specific questions. I was somewhat puzzled by the meaning of the unilateral declaration by the French Government in all four cases, which is at the end of the partnership and co-operation agreements. I do not quite follow what that refers to.

Can the Minister say why, in the case of Moldova, Austria Finland and Sweden do not appear at be associated in the final Act whereas they are in the case of the other three? The Minister said earlier that ratification by all member states is required.

Next, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why there are articles about monetary policy stipulating the gradual adjustments of their policies to the European monetary system in the case of Moldova and Belarus, but not in the case of Kyrgyz or Kazakhstan.

Finally, can the Minister elaborate a little on the reasons behind the varying provisions with respect to the applicability of GATT to the four former republics? I recognise that these are complex—indeed, arcane—matters, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that the provisions vary and say why.

In conclusion, I particularly welcome the articles in the agreements on education and training. It is vitally important that all those countries improve their educational systems and develop their training systems if they are to succeed economically. I very much hope that particular attention will be given to those articles in the agreements.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I very much welcome the content of the agreements and would not in any way oppose the Motions that are before the House. However, I should like briefly to draw attention to my anxiety about the process by which we undertake this scrutiny, if that is not too ambitious a word for it. It illustrates as well as anything the need for more information to be provided in advance to the House before one undertakes such scrutiny.

The starting point for the parliamentarian is the notice that we receive on the Order Paper of the Motions to be moved. Because, happily, the European Communities Act 1972 requires an order to be laid in draft before Parliament, we then receive the order itself. The explanatory note which is attached to the order does no more than provide a contents page for extremely detailed treaties, which in the case of the one that I am looking at now runs to some 99 primary articles which deal with an extremely important range of rights and interests, including most favoured nation treatment, the rights to be accorded to foreign nationals in employment in this country, the right to establish economic enterprises, and so on.

The bewildered parliamentarian who then wants to know what on earth we are doing has to obtain a copy of the agreement itself, which is referred to in what is described as the schedule to the order. There is then no explanatory memorandum to explain (even to someone who is relatively legally qualified like myself) exactly the scope and likely impact of the partnership and co-operation agreements. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory process. It is only by a happy accident that we are privileged to be here to approve the orders by affirmative resolution, but that does not arise with most treaties.

I therefore repeat the very modest suggestion that I have made in connection with my little Bill, which is that there should be an explanatory memorandum to enable us in advance to know exactly what we are here to do. There should also be some form of treaties scrutiny committee so that the "arcane" points, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, so described them, which always seem to be important and difficult matters, can be explored in advance by a specialist committee which can then in a practical way advise the House.

I am encouraged by the fact that in the new Liberal Government in Australia, the new Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Alexander Downer, MP, is likely to respond positively to the proposals in this area from the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, so I am informed today by its chairman. I hope that in a practical way we can improve the information that we receive in this House about the likely impact of a treaty, as well as having special scrutiny machinery. This is a good working example of a gap in our system and I very much hope that it can be remedied.

My Lords, I should like to say something about the order dealing with Moldova. I had the privilege of being the Council of Europe's Rapporteur when we considered the full membership of Moldova. I had long conversations with Moldovan parliamentarians and made a lengthy visit to Moldova. I shall be going back to assess the progress they have made. One of the reasons why they have been able to have this agreement is that they have received the seal of good housekeeping of the Council of Europe, without which the European Union is not prepared to do very much for any new member state that wishes to have some kind of association agreement. This covers the field of parliamentary democracy, multi-party parliament, which exists in Moldova, human rights, which are now guaranteed under Moldovan legislation, and many other matters. Great progress has been made in Moldova under President Snegur.

However, there are certain difficulties. Perhaps my noble friend will say something about how she believes the agreements will operate inside Moldova where there is the so-called breakaway Republic of Transdniestia. Incidentally, if any noble Lord goes to Tiraspol, the capital of Transdniestia, and is blind-folded, he will believe that he is in the Soviet Union of the 1950s. Probably the last remaining statue of Lenin is at the steps of their headquarters. When I went there to discuss with non-governmental organisations the problems that they had, the matter was rehearsed. All of us had seen it in the past. We were told how wonderful the government was and that there were no problems of any kind. All I need say is that there is gross abuse of human rights in that part of Moldova and virulent anti-Semitism.

The OCSE has been doing a very good job in trying to find a way to make the writ of the freely elected Government of Moldova run throughout the country. It has been aided by both Russia and the Ukraine; that is to be welcomed. In contrast to the somewhat unpleasant things I have said about Tiraspol, I can tell noble Lords that Moldovan wine is very drinkable. I hope to see it on the list in your Lordships' House.

How do we ensure that any benefits that accrue from these proposals will be given to ordinary citizens who are ruled by the so-called government of Tiraspol without interfering with the sovereign rights of the freely elected parliament and government of the Republic of Moldova as a whole?

My Lords, I should like to say a few words about these agreements which we support. It is almost exactly 12 months since the Minister introduced the partnership agreements with the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. The present series takes that a stage further. When the Minister spoke a year ago she emphasised how different the new member states of the former Soviet Union were and the need for individually tailored relationships. The present group illustrates vividly that the Minister was absolutely right. Belarus and Moldova lie between the Russian Federation and east and central Europe and the European Union. Belarus has, I believe, a high degree of monetary integration with the Russian Federation. They are both undoubtedly European states. On the other hand, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are undoubtedly Asian states. The latter is a huge country. Kyrgyzstan is a tiny republic on the Chinese frontier. When one looks at an atlas one discovers that both are more than three times further away from Moscow than we are in London. I was fascinated to read that Kyrgyzstan had a reputation for being the most democratic country in central Asia with a go-ahead president. There is a certain amount of disillusion setting in. One of the Chatham House journals reported that in the elections last year there was a sense of shock when it was discovered that 30 per cent. of the new deputies were being investigated by the state prosecutor's office for illegal financial dealings.

It is against that background that the task of the partnership and co-operation agreements in promoting a plural democracy and a liberal market system must be seen. The noble Lord who has just spoken is absolutely right to draw attention to some of the difficulties in ensuring that the assistance we give is used in the wisest and best ways. I believe that it must be a long term, patient process of well directed assistance and sustained dialogue at many different levels.

The European Union funds of TACIS and PHARE are of great importance, as are Britain's bilateral know-how funds. Recently, I asked the Minister a series of Written Questions about the scale of them. I am grateful for the answers that she gave on 20th March. There are very substantial sums of European Union money involved. It is disturbing to discover how much worrying evidence there is. The Brussels administration is excessively bureaucratic in dealing with them. I draw the attention of the Minister to the Court of Auditors' criticism. It called on the European Commission to discharge its responsibilities in relation to the present state of deadlock and uncertainty.

The Minister may be pleased if I go on to say that my impression is that the United Kingdom's bilateral know-how fund operates more flexibly, effectively and efficiently than Brussels. I make a declaration of interest as the trustee of a charity that receives grants from the know-how fund to try to train journalists in the former Soviet Union in the virtues of a free press. Under our own bilateral know-how funds we spent £228 million to the end of March 1995. In one of her Answers the Minister told me that in the current year we expected to spend £80 million. The contrast between the European Union's efforts and those of our know-how funds is instructive, even allowing for the vast differences in scale. I believe that the know-how funds greatly benefit from the experience of our Civil Service here in being well versed in administering aid programmes. They are much more flexible and less bureaucratic than PHARE and TACIS seem to be. Inevitably, they had to overcome a number of early difficulties with outside consultants who were eager to work for the know-how funds—perhaps we provided some of them—but who knew little about the target countries. I believe that those difficulties are being overcome.

The figures I have given for the British know-how funds do not include the charity know-how fund. A special word of praise is called for in that respect. The charitable voluntary sector in this country—and, I am sure, in other western countries—is a jewel in our crown. However, in the countries of the former Soviet Union the voluntary sector, if it ever existed, was stifled during 70 years of communist totalitarian rule. The charity know-how fund normally does good in terms of the intrinsic value of the projects with which it is associated, but it may be doing even more good by educating others in the virtues of voluntary activity and doing things for oneself.

To create from scratch a tradition of voluntary service in partnership with the state is a further example of the fact that changing a political and economic culture is a long, slow business. It requires infinite patience and tolerance and a capacity to face setbacks and not to be thrown off course by media sensationalism. I believe that it is that long term view, including rigorous scrutiny of the way in which resources are used, that is the important starting point in the years that lie ahead under these partnership and co-operation agreements.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I shall do my best to answer the questions posed, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Having welcomed the orders, she first asked me whether there were similar agreements for other republics and what was the timetable. Perhaps we may just look at the signing of the partnership and co-operation agreements. They have been signed for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. For Uzbekistan, the EU opened talks last month; for Turkmenistan, the possibility of talks is being examined; for Tajikistan, at present there is little chance of a partnership and co-operation agreement, but let us hope that it will put its house in better order, and one such chance may come. We expect signature for Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to take place this month. So that is the state of similar agreements.

The noble Baroness then asked me about the main criteria for the agreements. The main features are obviously that there should be political dialogue at ministerial, parliamentary and official levels; that there should be closer trading links, in particular, through the mutual abolition of quotas on most goods; most favoured nation treatment on tariffs; the abolition of discriminatory internal taxes. The Belarus and Moldova agreements allow for talks in 1998 about eventual free trade areas.

The third feature relates to the provisions on parties doing business in one another's territories, including the terms upon which companies may set up, the regulatory framework for investment and helping to bring the Belarusan, Moldovan, Kazakh and Kyrgyz practice into line with the EU, for example, on competition and intellectual property.

The fourth main area is that there should be continued economic co-operation under the TACIS programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has just referred. I shall return to that issue in a few moments.

There are slight differences in the four agreements, but on the whole they are largely similar. The differences that exist are textual ones reflecting the different negotiating priorities of the four countries. For instance, each country had its own list of goods to be exempted from the requirement to grant most favoured nation treatment. In areas where the MFN treatment applies, the EU and the other party give each other the same trading advantages that they accord to all other countries to which they grant MFN treatment.

On substance, the Belarus and Moldova agreements contain an evolution clause, offering a review in 1998 of the possibility of a free trade area. There are no social security provisions in the Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan agreements. All EC goods imported into Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan will be free of quotas and equivalent measures. For EC imports into Belarus and Moldova, exemptions for such restrictions will apply to goods other than textiles and coal and steel products.

There are some differences between these four PCAs and the Russian and Ukrainian PCAs. Russia and Ukraine are similar to Belarus and Moldova for the obvious reasons that they have had a similar situation, but only Russia and Ukraine PCAs provide for a dialogue at the highest level; that is to say, at presidential level. The Russian agreement, which is not before us tonight, contains some transition periods which take account of its special relationship with the rest of the CIS.

On the further questions asked by the noble Baroness, let me explain that the reason there is a French declaration at the end is that there is no need for the French overseas territories (the DOM/TOMs) to be bound by the PCAs. That is all that is meant by that.

The noble Baroness then asked why Austria, Finland and Sweden do not appear to have signed the Moldova PCA. That was because the Moldova PCA was signed on 28th November 1994, before those three countries acceded to the EU. I can assure the noble Baroness that Austria, Finland and Sweden agreed on their accession to take on the obligations that apply under the PCAs.

The noble Baroness asked me about monetary policy articles on Belarus and Moldova, but not on Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. I wish to look into that a little more than I have been able to while listening to other noble Lords. I shall write to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken with a full explanation. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister about it.

The last question that the noble Baroness asked me was about the reasons for the GATT differentiation. I believe that she is aware that all agreements contain references to the GATT, including the further development on accession. There are no real differences. I can read her a long explanation of the whole of the WTO arrangements. Obviously the PCAs can be amended to take into account accession to the WTO. There are different situations for each of them. The UK, however, welcomes the prospect of all these countries eventually becoming members of the WTO on the basis that they apply and that they then respect the WTO's rules.

As far as I know, the progress being made is normal for each of the countries. If the noble Baroness would like a note of that, I suggest that I put it in my letter to her rather than detain your Lordships now.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, returned to a common interest that he and I now definitely share about getting better explanations to your Lordships in advance of debate. May I assure him that explanatory memoranda are submitted on all PCAs. That is part of the normal scrutiny procedure. I must apologise if he did not know that for these four agreements the committee scrutinised the explanatory memoranda in 1995. I cannot tell him exactly when in 1995 that was, but they have been through the process. He knows full well that he and I believe in this process and that it is already working well for PCAs.

My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked me about Moldova, in which he has taken such an important interest as the leader of the group on the Council of Europe. I understand that he is puzzled about what can be done over Transdniestia. We obviously hope that there will be an early negotiated settlement to the dispute which takes account of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova. We have warmly supported Moldova's efforts since independence to introduce and sustain reform. We have no reason to doubt Moldova's commitment to fulfilling her obligations under this new agreement, but, as my noble friend made clear, there is plenty of action going on through the OSCE at present to try to resolve the Transdniestia dispute. I believe that that is the way in which to proceed with the matter. It does not invalidate putting the PCA forward to your Lordships tonight.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, told us about the importance of auditing what goes on and we will accept that. He went on to talk about the TACIS and PHARE programmes. The TACIS programme relates to these particular orders. His kind comments about the know-how funds and the officials running them are very much appreciated. In 1989, when we introduced the funds, the procedures were experimental. However, as he realised, we had the benefit of many years of experience of technical co-operation in other parts of the world which we put together with new experience of the former Soviet Union countries and the central and eastern European countries. We now see that the British know-how funds are almost a role model for others. We cannot impose our procedures on others but I believe that increasingly the programmes run by the European Union are taking a lesson out of a good housekeeping book. Certainly the PHARE programme has improved considerably and adopts a number of techniques that we have used during the past six years. I hope that the TACIS programme will become a great deal more flexible because my experience is exactly that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's comments about the charity know-how funds. During my somewhat limited travels in the former Soviet Union I have found that the idea of helping oneself by charitable or non-governmental efforts is catching on fast. Therefore, anything that the charity know-how funds can do to aid that process reinforces the efforts which are being made initially in small ways in many different areas. That process is many light years away from the experience of the former Soviet Union.

I have sought to explain the matters which were a little less clear. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and copy my letter with extra detail to other noble Lords who have spoken today. It is necessary to move each order individually. I believe that the PCAs will offer substantial encouragement to the process of reform in the four countries. That is in the interests not only of the countries themselves but of the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

moved Amendment No.1:

Page 2, line 43, leave out ("publish or join in the publication of") and insert ("come forward and join in the making of a public statement in open court which is").

My Lords, I support the purpose which underlies the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has spoken. Again, I am not entirely happy in my own mind that the form of his amendment in respect of Clause 2 really meets the mischief which he wishes to avoid. It may be better to have:

"Publish or join in the publication of",

as an alternative to:

"come forward and join in the making of a public statement in open court".

However, it does not seem to me that that necessarily deals with the legitimate concern of newspapers arising under Clause 3(3).

I support the noble Lord when he says that it is not reasonable for a court to be able to direct an apology to be printed in terms and in a position with which the editor does not concur.

I am in a position to wholeheartedly support the noble Lord in relation to Amendment No. 17. I must declare an interest in that I was acting for the newspaper at one stage, as the noble Lord may have been at another, in respect of the two men named Nigel Watts. The only benefit was to lawyers and that is not a small benefit, of course. But nobody had behaved badly. It was found, at first instance and also in the Court of Appeal that there was not any qualified privilege in such circumstances. It seems to me, in a Bill which is only tinkering at the edges of reform, to be a useful amendment. I support wholeheartedly both the motive and the wording of Amendment No. 17.

My Lords, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in introducing Amendment No. 1, he spoke of the misuse of this new judicial power. If I have misunderstood, then obviously I shall be corrected.

It is important that that power should be in the hands of the judiciary. I would expect, as would most of us, that that would be used appropriately. If one has been defamed in large letters on the front page of a newspaper which has a large circulation, to receive a correction and apology in diminutive print just above the details of the publisher would be regarded by many as slightly unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.

The Times editorial published on the last day on which this Bill was considered used a dramatic example of the "News at Ten" being introduced by an apology followed by a statement of considerable general political importance in the country. That was because it was thought the judge would have ordered that to take place. It is almost possible to imagine that but I do not believe that it is a realistic scenario.

I am anxious that the problem which I mentioned at the outset is dealt with adequately. But I am also anxious of course that this procedure should be used. Therefore, I wish to reach the best possible solution to the problem. I have initiated discussions with various representatives of the media to see whether we can find an accommodation. There would be difficulty in adopting the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for, among other reasons, that given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.

We must try to see whether there is a solution which allows not only for a public recognition of the defamation in the case to which this applies but also a publicised recognition of it. I am anxious to see that the power to require publication is hedged round sufficiently to make it impossible to have the sort of scenario which The Times article suggested, which I do not think would be justified even on the basis of the present Bill. But if I can improve it in that respect, I shall be happy to do so.

My stance in relation to Amendment No. 1 is that I see the problem which the noble Lord puts forward. There are also other problems associated with it. I am anxious to try to secure a solution. I hope that by the time we reach the next stage of the Bill I may have managed to do that to the satisfaction of the noble Lord and the media while at the same time maintaining the interests of those who may have been defamed.

On Amendment No. 17, I notice a coincidence of desire between the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Williams of Mostyn. What I find difficult about the amendment is that in order to gain a solution to the problem of one person—the party defamed—a privilege is to be given to defame somebody else. I do not see why that should happen. I cannot for the life of me see a justification in an apology to the one Nigel Watts to defame the other. It is possible that there are reasons for it; indeed, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that there was a small but not unimportant benefit to the lawyers. Well, no doubt that was so, but I would not, perhaps, wish to encourage that particular type of benefit.

On the other hand, I do not see why it is that the defamation so far as directed against the other Mr. Watts should be protected. Similarly, if a newspaper wants to defend itself and apologise by blaming the journalist who supplied the material, I do not believe that that kind of activity ought to be protected by qualified privilege. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, common law does not apply that doctrine of qualified privilege to such a situation. On that point, I believe that the common law has developed in a way that is satisfactory.

The common law qualified privilege applies, in my submission, in a wholly different context from that which is the subject of the amendment. There is a qualified privilege for statements made in pursuance of a legal, social or moral duty to a person who has a corresponding duty or interest to receive them. But, in those cases, the person claiming to have acted under such a duty will be the defendant, who will have to prove his own good motive if the defence is to succeed. Moreover, even if that privilege is upheld, it would not protect repetition beyond the situation in which the duty and corresponding interest applied. In other words, while the defence of qualified privilege applies between the two people, it does not apply outside of that situation if the information is used beyond the area to which the duty applies.

The particular type of qualified privilege that the amendment would introduce into our law, I believe for the first time, would presumably cover the publication to whomsoever and over whatsoever period. Therefore, while I see a certain problem, I do not see why trying to remedy it for one person should be a reason in effect for depriving another person of protection which, apart from that, he would have had in the ordinary law of defamation. Therefore, I fear that I do not envisage any clear way forward in relation to Amendment No. 17, although I do believe it is possible to find a way forward in relation to Amendment No. 1.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both speakers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his strong support and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for being so alive to the problems that have been raised and so open-minded about possible solutions.

I shall deal first with Amendment No.1. I should like to clarify the fact that I do not believe I said that I was concerned about the misuse of judicial power; indeed, I am concerned that the power itself, properly used, would be regarded as coercive and that it would result in the media not making sufficient use of the procedure because they would see, rightly or wrongly, the court's function as usurping their role. However, I am most encouraged by the response of the noble and learned Lord as regards the need, if possible, to find a solution which strikes a fair balance. I am certainly not wedded to the particular form of words set out in the amendment.

I turn now to Amendment No. 17. I should point out that I have no direct professional interest to declare, unfortunately, because I have not acted for a newspaper or for either man known as Mr. Watts. I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and he has persuaded me, subject to any afterthoughts, that it would be very difficult to accept my amendment without creating the further problem that he described. I refer, for example, to the problem that, in such a situation, a journalist would then be aggrieved but would have no remedy against the newspaper which had cast the blame upon him. Of the two amendments, the first one is far more important because it goes to the very heart of the procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall return to the issue at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 12, leave out ("not").

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to declare any particular professional interest. However, as someone who has acted for newspapers which find that they have made mistakes, I can only say that the ones who find a way out (which will vindicate the plaintiff without the expense and agony for both sides of a trial) are at present driven, many times against their will, either to pay wildly excessive damages—in other words, to throw money at the problem unnecessarily and unjustly—or to go to trial with all that that implies. Anything that could be done to extend the procedure beyond the very early stages of the process seems to me to be extremely desirable. Indeed, the more that we can make the procedure work properly the better. As I said, I strongly support the amendment. I very much hope that there can be flexibility in the area so as to make the procedure somewhat attractive, not just in the very short space of time when the proceedings are originally launched.

My Lords, it is certainly quite desirable to have a degree of flexibility. But, on the other hand, the procedure is designed to deal with the matter expeditiously at the start of the proceedings. Indeed, one of my advisers has described it as a quick "hands up" way of curtailing the proceedings. It is not designed for later stages and, therefore, I find it difficult to accept the view that we should allow it to be used at any time, as would be the effect of removing the word "not" from the subsection. As I understand it, it would simply make the provision available at any stage in the proceedings.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, defendants may realise at some stage in the course of the proceedings that they have made a mistake and may realise that they should not have lodged defences. Well, mistakes sometimes have an effect. In such a situation it is still possible for them to settle, although the terms of settlement may be rather different from what they would have been if they had not lodged the defences in the first place.

The special machinery provided in Clauses 2 to 4 is neither needed nor intended as a substitute or alternative formal procedure for cases that have reached the stage of defences having been lodged. It is designed to provide immediate amends avoiding all the trouble and expense of conventional proceedings where the defendant comes forward at once ready to minimise and make up for the harm he has done. This has advantages for both sides in achieving a mutually satisfactory outcome quickly and cheaply. The plaintiff knows that proper amends will be made without his having to go through an action, and the defendant knows that the steps which he will have to take once he has committed himself to an offer will be reasonable.

The question is why the machinery should not be made available to cut short proceedings which have already gone further down the line, since the lack of immediacy could be reflected by a larger award. There would, I think, be dangers in this. If we try to give the same advantage to the honourable defendant who has been misled by his sources or advisers as to those who have immediately admitted their wrong, advantage could also be taken by those who were less "honourable" and simply did not bother to make appropriate inquiries before deciding to contest the claim or saw the machinery as a useful fall-back to guarantee that they would never have to face a full trial even if the plaintiff was not intimidated by the pleaded defences.

It was suggested on the previous occasion—and I think it is implicit in what was said tonight—that defendants may need more time to make their decisions before lodging defences. Of course there will be flexibility in that. A defendant who has had time to decide to contest the claim on the basis of a particular defence has also had time to make the inquiries on which that decision is based. However, it is right to consider the interaction which this new machinery will have with the new provisions for summary disposal. Under Clause 10 there is an express power to make special rules as to summary disposal. These may include modification of the rules usually governing the timetable for serving pleadings and authorising the court to require a defendant to elect, at or before the summary disposal hearing, whether to make an offer to make amends. In practice, therefore, the defendant may have rather longer to make his inquiries and make his election than if the standard timetable applied.

Therefore I believe that there is an opportunity in the procedures which we are introducing to give defendants a longer time to make their decisions than perhaps exists at the present moment. I believe that is a better type of flexibility to introduce than to allow this procedure to be used after defences have been lodged, when it is a procedure which is really designed to avoid the necessity of a case going that far. I hope that that will meet the type of flexibility that is asked for, and that therefore the noble Lord will feel able not just to withdraw his amendment but to feel reasonable satisfaction that the point is properly dealt with.

My Lords, I shall certainly not press my amendment, but with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that he has dealt with the matters that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, have addressed. A quick "hands up" has its virtue but it would often be brought about after the issue of a writ. Even if the Bill becomes an Act and reduces the limitation period to 12 months, the "hands up" will not necessarily be quick. Speed and shorthand have their value but that is not an overwhelming value. I say with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the purpose of this offer of amends procedure is to produce settlement not trial, certainty not uncertainty and, as the noble and learned Lord said, to avoid trouble and expense. If there is an easy mechanism available to defendants who find themselves to be in the wrong, why should it not be available? Not all newspapers are ignoble in what they print. Some of them simply honestly get things wrong. Sometimes their sources are not, in the end, reliable. Sometimes further documentation or evidence will come to hand. A defendant is obliged on the rules to serve his defence fairly promptly and it seems a folly to disentitle him from this relief, which may, of course, be a disadvantage from the plaintiff's point of view also. Having said that, and indicating generally that I may well want to return to these matters yet again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Failure to accept offer to make amends]:

moved Amendment No. 3:

Leave out Clause 4.

My Lords, once again I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. One should bear in mind that the burden of proof is cast upon a defendant. No one wants to encourage newspapers to be irresponsible. The law is strong in preventing that. However, it seems to me that this is again an unnecessary limitation upon the new procedure. For the reasons given I support what has been said.

My Lords, it must be my fault that two such experienced practitioners press upon me such an obviously simple and highly desirable change. However, that is not the way that I see the effect of this amendment. As I understand, its effect would be to undermine the whole purpose of the offer to make amends which has been widely welcomed and is designed to encourage defendants who realise they have erred to take immediate steps to right admitted wrongs. Everyone will benefit if there is an incentive for the defendant to make an offer and for the plaintiff to accept an offer for amends which will provide a satisfying conclusion making conventional proceedings unnecessary.

But in making an offer the defendant must commit himself to making appropriate amends, which may include money compensation assessed by a judge. The incentive to commit himself in this way is provided by the knowledge that he will have an absolute defence if the offer is not accepted (unless it is shown that he knew or had reason to believe that he was defaming the plaintiff). The effect of taking that defence away—which is the effect of leaving out Clause 4—would be that once the defendant has made an offer, the plaintiff must win and has nothing to lose by disregarding the offer and insisting on a trial. The amendment removes a carefully prepared balance. If the plaintiff has nothing to lose by disregarding a genuine offer, I find it difficult to see how the defendant has anything to gain by making it. The machinery provided in Clauses 2 and 3 would have very limited usefulness and would not, without Clause 4, have the desired effect of encouraging sensible settlement. Therefore it seems to me that Clause 4 is an essential part of the mechanisms of Clauses 2 and 3.

However, that does not seem to be the basis on which this amendment has been proposed. That gives me cause for concern, but at the moment that is my position.

My Lords, I am sure that the amendment could have been more felicitously phrased but I think that the purpose behind it is quite plain. Both I and my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill have tried to explain it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the purpose of the new and improved procedure is to right admitted wrongs. We entirely agree. The noble and learned Lord also said that its purpose is to bring about sensible settlements. We entirely agree with that. It is not the whole clause that one is focusing on—although the amendment is crudely put—it is Clause 4(3). I say with great respect that we are simply suggesting that, if one wants to right admitted wrongs and produce sensible settlements, one should shut the door on no one who wishes to avail himself or herself of that opportunity. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [Limitation of actions: England and Wales]:

moved Amendment No. 4:

Leave out Clause 5.

My Lords, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating what I said last time. On this occasion I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.

Perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Lord referred to disciplinary procedures taking a long time. It is a long time since I looked at the Limitation Act 1980. In replying, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain whether in such a situation the court would have a discretion to extend time in relation to the limitation period? Although the cause of action will accrue, is there not a discretion to extend time in circumstances where real hardship could be shown? I have the impression that that was the position. In any event, I support the stance taken in the Bill and would not wish to change it in any way.

My Lords, I have always found some difficulty about limitation generally. There is always a question about precisely what purpose it serves and what the principle should be on which it should proceed. A good deal of concern has gone into that subject matter over the years. The more I have seen of detailed provisions of limitation, the more complicated they look.

The amendment would amount to the rejection of one of the major recommendations by Lord Justice Neill's working group—namely, that the limitation period both for actions in defamation, and actions for malicious falsehood, should be reduced to one year, but that there should be a discretion to extend the period. Therefore there is in the Bill, in this situation, a completely open discretion to extend the period.

I have considered quite carefully, in particular in relation to some of the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave last time, whether the discretion should be in some way elaborated so as to indicate what might be done in particular situations. However, I have concluded that that would be unwise. On the whole, judicial discretion in this area without any circumscription would be the right answer. I am comforted in the view that that is correct when I consider the attempts made to limit judicial discretion in other types of limitation. They produce tremendous complexity and metaphysical distinctions of comparative fineness.

The recommendation of Lord Justice Neill's working group was made after careful consideration of the reality and all the issues arising in considering the time limits which should apply to defamation proceedings. Your Lordships will remember that the personnel of the working group were extremely experienced in this area of the law. The group pointed out that only in the most exceptional circumstances could a plaintiff be justified in delaying for more than a year before starting proceedings. It is almost always in his own interest to do so as soon as he knows that he has been defamed. If he acts at once, his action can minimise or even prevent any substantial damage, which is why he has a cause of action, and presumably why he chooses to take proceedings.

This is very different from a personal injuries claim, where it may not immediately be apparent to an injured person that his injury is attributable to some other person's fault, and his action, however prompt, cannot halt, minimise or prevent the injury: indeed it may be impossible to assess the inexorable long term effect of the injury. It is right, therefore, to require particularly swift action as the norm in defamation cases.

The group gave examples of circumstances (other than the plaintiff's lack of requisite knowledge during the running of the limitation period) which would justify extension. The present law allows extension only in the narrow case of when the plaintiff in defamation (not malicious falsehood) did not acquire the relevant knowledge until after the period had expired. Thus this clause is in two ways more generous to plaintiffs than the old ones, since the strict limitation rule may be relaxed, for instance, in favour of a plaintiff who only acquired the requisite knowledge at the eleventh hour, or a plaintiff who had some other good reason for not starting proceedings within the period prescribed.

In my submission, the balance of a very ample judicial discretion is the answer in relation to those cases where there is a special reason for not taking action within the year. I therefore think that it is right that your Lordships should give effect to the recommendations of the Neill Committee having regard to the reasons which it has given and which I have sought both to summarise and to elaborate.

My Lords, I am most obliged for that summary and elaboration. I regret to say that I remain unconvinced. I do not think that the discretion allowed for in Clause 5 is a completely open judicial discretion since it is circumscribed to an extent by the terms of new Section 32A.

The noble and learned Lord confessed a difficulty with the metaphysical principles of limitation. I do not seek to swim in those waters. However, on limitation one is dealing with balancing the plaintiff's right with the defendant's certainty. Of course it is in the plaintiff's own interest to get on with his claim as soon as possible, but that is true of almost every claim in almost every circumstance in tort. However, if lack of money or the other extraneous circumstances which I indicated tell against that interest being immediately asserted, then it does not seem unreasonable to have the full three-year period.

Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

UNJUSTIFIED PROCEEDINGS FOR, OR ACTIONS IN RELATION TD, ALLEGED DEFAMATION

(" .—(1) If a person (whether or not the person allegedly defamed) without reasonable cause issues a writ for defamation or by letter, advertisement or otherwise without reasonable cause threatens to issue such a writ, or otherwise without reasonable cause attempts to hinder the publication or further publication of allegedly defamatory material, the person aggrieved (whether or not the person to whom or against whom the threats or attempts were made) may bring proceedings against the person issuing the writ or making the threat or attempt, claiming any relief mentioned in subsection (4) below.

(2) In any such proceedings the onus of proving reasonable cause shall be on the defendant or defender but he may discharge it as follows—

(a) if he has issued a relevant writ, by undertaking to the court to pursue the consequent proceedings with due expedition,

(b) if a relevant writ has not been issued, by undertaking to the court that such a writ will be issued forthwith and that consequent proceedings will be pursued with due expedition.

(3) Breach of any such undertaking mentioned in subsection (2) above shall, in addition to being a contempt of court, revive the plaintiff's or pursuer's right to claim the reliefs in subsection (4) below.

(4) The reliefs are as follows—

(a) dismissal of the writ,

(b) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable,

(c) an injunction or interdict against the renewal of the writ or the continuance or resumption of the threats or attempts,

(d) damages, including (where appropriate) aggravated or exemplary damages.

(5) The provisions of this section apply mutatis mutandis to the law of criminal libel.").

My Lords, I believe that it is the appropriate procedure for me, on behalf of the Leader of the House, to draw attention to the advice, to which my noble and learned friend clearly referred in his speech, which was given by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Leader of the House. It was to the effect that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 5 and the later Amendment No. 12 are beyond the scope of the Bill for the reasons given. The principal reason is that the Public Bill Office takes the view, as it would in all other Bills dealing only with the civil law, that any amendment which deals with the criminal law is irrelevant; that is, beyond the scope of the Bill.

In view of what my noble and learned friend said about what he wished to do, in a sense it is academic, but it is right for me to draw the matter to the attention of the House as being the advice which the House has received from the Public Bill Office.

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is present this evening to move what always was his own amendment. With his great authority, experience and eloquence, he moved it far more effectively than I attempted to do on the previous occasion when he could not be present. The point of procedure raised is one that I perfectly understand and am alive to.

The reason why in debate it is important to examine the criminal implications of a civil Bill of this kind is that there is something extremely special about the civil law of defamation; namely, it springs entirely out of the criminal law. As I said on the last occasion, this is a creature of the jurisprudence of the Court of Star Chamber. The entire civil law of libel comes from it. Therefore, quite apart from the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when trying to understand why we are where we are in relation to civil law, one needs to look over one's shoulder to see the nature of the criminal law.

I think everyone in the House who spoke last time, as the noble and learned Lord said, agreed that there is a problem in relation to the misuse of the civil law of libel. The problem is there because, unlike any other tort, the tort of libel places the burden of proof on the defendant to prove the truth of the publication. I sought to deal with that on the last occasion. I am told that the Australian Law Commission—perhaps it is the Law Commission for New South Wales—recommended, as did the Irish Law Reform Commission, that the burden should be shifted. Given that that is not likely to happen in this House in our lifetime, one of the consequences of the reverse burden of proof is that it enables the Robert Maxwells of this world to issue gagging writs. Unless the defendant is able to swear on oath that he intends to justify, which may be extremely difficult at the interlocutory stage, there is then the danger of an interlocutory injunction being granted.

Everyone is aware of the problem. The solution put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is an ingenious one from another field, another kind of intellectual property, namely, patent law. I am encouraged to look forward to any remarks by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. In principle, I very much support the intention behind the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for his courtesy in letting me know his intentions in relation to the amendment and the other to which he has spoken, and for his remarks about my letter to him.

The question is how far the problem extends. It is true that a problem is created; but I do not know exactly how widespread the particular problem is. Most of the examples given relate to a particular plaintiff who is not in a position to issue any more such writs. Therefore, from that point of view, that aspect of the problem may have been resolved. However, I see the force in requiring us to consider the matter.

The circumstances of patent law are a little different from those referred to here. Patent law is intended to deal with an abuse of the monopoly power itself which the state has conferred in the shape of the patent. These unjustified threats were used in effect to extend the monopoly beyond that which the state had granted. In that sense the state had a special responsibility for seeing that that does not happen.

In the defamation field the matter is rather different. There are other areas, too, in which unjustified threats can be made. The ordinary remedy is to defend the action. And in our system of jurisprudence there is the sanction of cost. That is an important part of our system. It is one which those on the other side of the Atlantic are certainly aware of and in some cases now use. So that particular sanction is available.

What I propose, as I stated in the letter to my noble and learned friend, is that I should undertake, in the department, to consider this matter further. I want to try to find out how extensive the problem is, or continues to be, and to see what is regarded as the best solution to it. Obviously, that cannot happen in the context of this particular Bill. I have no doubt that the law of defamation will require further reform as time goes on. This is a matter that requires more thorough investigation than we are able to give it in the context and timetable of this particular Bill. All the proposals in the Bill have already been the subject of considerable consultation, many of them coming from Lord Justice Neill's working group. I propose therefore to take the matter forward in this particular way.

It may well be that, having done so, I shall want to try to see whether a reconstituted group might help. At the moment I want to find out more about the extent of the problem before setting up machinery to deal with it. I hope that with those assurances my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, feeling that the purpose for which he brought it forward has been served and that the problem will not be lost sight of, but will be further investigated.

My Lords, my only regret about flouting the wishes of the Public Bill Office is that I seem thereby to have forfeited an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whom I know has no love for criminal libel.

As to my noble and learned friend, I need say only this. The problem is not confined to Robert Maxwell and his machinations. I raised this matter, although I cannot remember the circumstances, long before Maxwell started to use the gagging writ. Moreover, one can think of other examples.

I do not like mentioning the first case, that of Mr. John Profumo, since he was a ministerial colleague and by his devotion to the service of his fellow man ever since his fall from grace has put all of us to shame. But there was an example of the issuing of a writ which effectively closed down a newspaper revelation about a matter which was subsequently admitted to be true.

The second case I can think of is that of the Moonies, who were very prolific in relation to gagging writs. They were very successful for a long time in hindering investigation into their less salubrious activities.

Therefore I do not accept that this is an isolated problem. It is a serious problem, as was demonstrated in Committee. I am perfectly satisfied that my noble and learned friend should have the matter investigated in his department so long as he puts a stick of ginger behind those who investigate it. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Meaning of summary relief]:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:

Page 8, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—

("(b) an order that the plaintiff have leave to make a statement in open court at such time and in such terms as the court may determine if the parties cannot agree;").

I am so sorry, my Lords. The amendment that I seek to move is Amendment No. 7. I shall not move the earlier amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The amendment that I should call is Amendment No. 7.

My Lords, Amendment No. 6 has officially not to be moved before we reach Amendment No. 7.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 8, line 29, leave out ("matter") and insert ("statement").

My Lords, I am grateful that we have reached Amendment No. 7. This is a matter which I would wish to consider. Since we have produced a special definition of the word "statement" which was brought in following consultation, and other provisions of the Bill have already been modified, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for identifying this provision as one where it might be appropriate to use the term which we have expressly defined elsewhere in the Bill to provide a clear and certain description. Many other terms have been used in defamation law generally to describe the same thing—that is, what has (or may have) been published and was (or may have been) defamatory, and is the reason why an action has been brought.

The context here is slightly different, however, as this paragraph is directed not to what the defendant has already published but to what he may publish in the future. Those future publications from which he should be restrained would not necessarily take exactly the same form as the statement which has been considered in the proceedings. It may be that he could devise another statement in a completely different form but conveying the same meaning as that which he has been ordered not to make or repeat as the case may be. That is the reason why the word "matter" has been used in this special context. But I should like to consider further the noble Lord's amendment.

Taking the patent situation, obviously, in a patent infringement the defendant is usually subject at the end, if he is found to have infringed, to an injunction against further making or using the particular subject-matter of the invention, as he has already used it, and any comparable imitation of it often. So one wants to be sure that just by a very small change one could not get out of this particular form of order. But I feel that the noble Lord's amendment raises the question of whether we should consider the matter further or whether it should be elaborated somewhat. I am grateful to him for that and would be happy to consider it further.

My Lords, the gratitude is on my part for the sympathetic way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has approached the matter. It is common ground that we must seek to avoid unnecessary and excessive restraints on free speech. I am greatly encouraged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Leave out Clause 12.

My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to prevent an injustice which was identified by the working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill. Where a convicted person seeks to challenge his conviction, he should of course do so by way of appeal in the criminal court. It would be wrong for him to seek an alternative route of appeal by using the law of defamation in the civil courts where the standard of proof is lower. But other considerations apply when the convicted person is someone other than the plaintiff. It is contrary to public policy that plaintiffs in defamation proceedings should enjoy the artificial advantage of the rightness of someone else's conviction being unchallenged so that the defendant may be prevented from pursuing a proper defence. The injustice would, of course, be particularly apparent in a case where the conviction was quashed after the conclusion of the defamation proceedings in which it had been unchallengeable.

It is important to recognise that Clause 12 does not set out to restore the position as it was before 1968, when the conviction was not even admissible as evidence that the convicted person had committed the offence. The conviction will be admissible evidence that that person committed the offence and any other person who disputes that, in defamation proceedings, will have to produce evidence to the contrary. Clause 12 will allow that evidence, if any, to be considered and weighed fairly. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I regret to say that I remain unconvinced that there is any justice in the proposition that a plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime is enveloped in the conclusive presumption that he has committed it but other parties or witnesses are not. On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 [Basis of entitlement to damages]:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:

Leave out Clause 13.

moved Amendment No. 11:

After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

EVIDENCE CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT

(".—(1) Where the conduct of a person in or in relation to proceedings in Parliament is in issue in defamation proceedings, he may waive for the purposes of those proceedings, so far as concerns him, the protection of any enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

(2) Where a person waives that protection—

(a) any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made about his conduct, and

(b) none of those things shall be regarded as infringing the privilege of either House of Parliament.

(3) The waiver by one person of that protection does not affect its operation in relation to another person who has not waived it.

(4) Nothing in this section affects any enactment or rule of law so far as it protects a person (including a person who has waived the protection referred to above) from legal liability for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in Parliament.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), that subsection applies to—

(a) the giving of evidence before either House or a committee;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to either House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business;

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of either House or a committee; and

(e) any communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or any person having functions in connection with the registration of members' interests.

In this subsection "a committee" means a committee of either House or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").

My Lords, I apologise to the House for choosing to leave at precisely the wrong moment. I spoke at some length to this amendment at Committee stage and I therefore do not propose to repeat what I said at that time.

The purpose of the amendment is to redress what appears to be an injustice which was demonstrated by a recent case in which Mr. Neil Hamilton—a Member of another place—brought proceedings against a newspaper. He alleged that he had been defamed because the newspaper published an article which he said amounted to an allegation that he had accepted money in return for asking Questions.

The proceedings were stayed by the judge on the grounds that the jurisprudence which the courts developed, based upon the Bill of Rights, prevented the courts from investigating whether or not those allegations were true. The court held that the effect of a series of judicial decisions over many years since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1689 meant that the court had no right to inquire, even at the behest of a Member of Parliament, into anything that he had done in the course of his parliamentary duties.

The result was that the judge held that the newspaper was not in a position to defend itself by putting forward a plea of justification and it would therefore be wrong and unfair to allow the plaintiff to continue with his action. The plaintiff was therefore denied the opportunity which others would have, having been, as he alleges, libelled in a professional respect, to vindicate his reputation.

The historic privileges of both Houses contained in the Bill of Rights are of the greatest constitutional importance. I would not table the amendment if I thought that it in any way trenched upon the policy or the intention of that statute. But I see no reason why the preservation of those privileges should be inconsistent with the rights of a Member of either House to invite the court to investigate his conduct, and his conduct alone, within the House in order to clear his name from a libellous accusation. There seems to me to be no inconsistency in that at all. Justice requires that he should be able to do so. I am unable to detect any higher policy which should prevent that from being allowed. For those reasons I support the amendment.

My Lords, there was a fairly full debate on this amendment at Committee stage. I reflected upon what was said during that debate. I agree with both noble Lords who have spoken thus far. The existing state of the law is absurd and unjust.

However, the problem that has been created by the way in which the law has been interpreted now raises a complex and sensitive problem which was well understood by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his properly sensitive speech on the last occasion.

The key issue is whether the other place—the amendment primarily affects its Members—will agree to permit, through the statute, what has always been regarded as its collective privilege or immunity since the Bill of Rights was passed to be waived by an individual Member of Parliament to enable her or him to sue for libel while retaining the immunity from suit possessed by every Member of each House. That is the key issue and it is likely to affect another place more than this House, though it affects both.

I am not troubled by the one-sided nature of the position that will arise if the amendment is enacted, provided that the courts develop qualified privilege to cover the case where a Member of Parliament sues for libel. What I mean by that is this. At the moment Members of Parliament are immune from suit for what they say in Parliament. At the moment they are stymied in bringing libel proceedings to vindicate their parliamentary and public reputation. It is exactly that lack of reciprocity or mutuality which caused Mr. Justice Brennan in the American Supreme Court to decide that there should be a constitutional privilege for newspapers when they are dealing with an MP plaintiff.

It seems to me that there is no injustice, no real lack of equality of arms, provided that the courts adopt that approach, if MPs are to be permitted to sue for libel. What would be offensive to justice and any notion of equal treatment is if an MP, starting with Members' complete immunity for what they say in Parliament, was able then to waive that immunity on an individual basis and there was no corresponding qualified privilege. I agree that it must be on an individual basis, since, if it were on a collective basis, party politics might intervene in deciding whether or not an individual MP was to be permitted to take this action. That is why it is right that an individual MP should be able to waive what is regarded as a collective privilege but it would be an affront to justice if he were permitted to do that and then there was to be no qualified privilege in respect of that situation.

It is on that basis that I support the amendment. I remain troubled by the point I raised last time, which concerned what happened when more than one Member of Parliament was involved and one Member of Parliament sought to waive his privilege and the other did not and yet the conduct of the two was closely connected or they were closely associated with the alleged defamatory statement. I cannot see any answer to that. The courts will have to fashion their own answer in such a case. It might be that, if both MPs were unwilling to waive their privilege, the courts would have to stay the action at the behest of one of them. I am not sufficiently clever to be able to think of an answer and perhaps there is no answer.

I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the last occasion. However, it may be sensible, before reaching any final conclusion, for this House to see what another place says about the situation. On that basis I support the aim of the amendment and the way in which it was moved.

My Lords, this amendment raises issues of high constitutional importance. The privilege of Parliament, the privileges of both Houses of Parliament, the privileges of individual Members of Parliament and the Bill of Rights are involved.

It is hardly possible to exaggerate the constitutional importance of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated just now some of the qualifications that may be required. I hope therefore that the amendment will not be tendered for a Division or tendered to the vote at all to the collection of raised voices this evening. It would be highly inappropriate at this hour, in your Lordships' House, in an empty Chamber, to try to pass an amendment which is a starred amendment and which we only saw this morning, and to seek to get it passed into law. In my view, that would be quite inappropriate.

It is true that a somewhat similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage. But that again was at extremely short notice. Since then there has been the Recess. There has been no opportunity to canvass the views of the many others who are entitled to be considered, not least the Members of the other place. I hope that those who propose the amendment will withdraw it on this occasion. They will lose nothing by doing so because Third Reading will be on 7th May and that will give time for the proper consultation to take place which should take place.

I would make only one other point in relation to the terms of the amendment. It deals only with defamation actions. I should have thought it strongly arguable that, if the principle is admitted at all, it should apply to any action where it might be relevant. As I understand it, we are concerned with three constitutional issues. The first is the privilege of Parliament and of each separate House of Parliament. The second is the Bill of Rights. The privilege of Parliament does not depend on the Bill of Rights. One can easily ascertain that by looking at the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard where the House of Commons was vindicating its privilege as it saw it to prevent the publication of its proceedings. It ended rather distastefully with the law courts committing to prison the officer of the Serjeant of Arms and the House of Commons committing the Tipstaff to prison. That case shows that the privilege of Parliament is independent of the Bill of Rights. There was a famous judgment by Lord Ellenborough which makes plain the foundation of the privilege of Parliament; namely, that Parliament could not properly carry out its functions unless it was free from the scrutiny of the courts of law or anyone else outside.

The third issue is the privilege of the individual Member of Parliament. That, I think, does depend on the terms of the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights must now be scrutinised carefully in the light of the judgment in Pepper v. Hart. In my respectful submission, the proper procedure when it is desired to waive privilege for an individual Member of either House is to petition that House for waiver of its right to insist on its Members being under its own control. That happens time and again whenever a Member of your Lordships' House is requested to give evidence before a committee of another place. The other place then petitions your Lordships' House to allow that Member to give evidence. The same occurs the other way round.

That procedure by way of petition is not only a matter of everyday occurrence but it was expressly approved by Mr. Justice Pearson in the libel case of Dingle v. Associated Newspapers where I had the duty of intervening on behalf of the House of Commons and submitting that the proper procedure was by way of petition. Mr. Justice Pearson, as he then was—he was subsequently a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House—agreed with that.

As I said, we lose nothing by not rushing inappropriately into this amendment. On 7th May the Bill will have its Third Reading, when the matter can if necessary be resubmitted in a proper form after consultations with all those who are entitled to be consulted.

My Lords, I rise to support the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do so in a sense with some regret because I am acutely aware of and greatly sympathetic towards the dilemma in which Mr. Hamilton finds himself. I think it most appropriate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, should have tabled this amendment. However, I believe it raises questions that go beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill. Those have been well expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and I do not propose to go into them in detail. I shall simply underline the two central points that he made.

The first is that this is a constitutional matter. The Bill of Rights is at the heart of our constitution and constitutional matters ought to be considered very seriously by both Houses, with plenty of time to do so. I do not believe that sufficient time has yet elapsed for us to be confident to incorporate an amendment in a Bill in this House at this stage.

The second point is that it goes beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill in a second sense—why should it not apply to other civil proceedings. If this important change in our constitutional arrangements is going to be made, it goes way beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill.

For those two reasons I ask the House to stay its hand on the amendment at the moment, to perhaps set up a committee to consider the matter, to listen to what the other place says and to come back to it at Third Reading. But I should like to say again how much I sympathise with Mr. Hamilton's difficulties and dilemma and that it should not be taken from what I have said that I necessarily oppose the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.

My Lords, on the last occasion I specifically disqualified myself since I act in the matter in question for Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Greer. I simply wish to say neutrally that I respectfully agreed with the approach of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in particular at col. 258 of Hansard that, whatever the occasion may be, this is an important issue which should be properly ventilated in debate in each House. I do not put on one side what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That it should be properly ventilated is beyond dispute. I do not think I can say more than that.

My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I said on the last occasion. This is clearly an extremely important amendment and is at the very heart of the privileges that are associated with Parliament and with individual Members of Parliament. It is certainly a matter which requires very careful consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned some difficulties, as have my noble and learned friend and my noble friend.

On the question of other rights of action than those in defamation, I am not particularly clear as to how that might arise. But I am clear that this is a Defamation Bill and it is only in so far as these matters trench on defamation that we could properly deal with them in this Bill. The fact that that problem could arise in connection with other rights of action is of interest, but I do not think that that can determine the matter here.

On consultation, it is important that Members of your Lordships' House should be aware of what is at issue and should have an opportunity to consider the matter. The provision has now been on the Marshalled List twice. It may be that its appearance for a third time would ensure that everybody knew about it.

With regard to consulting the other place, I regard it as important that the other place should be consulted by a clause or an amendment to the Bill being discussed. I think that that is the proper way. I do not think that it is for us to ask the other place about its view on the matter. Obviously, if any Member of this House wants to discuss the matter with a Member or Members of another place, that noble Lord is free to do so. However, the constitutional procedure would be that it is for this House to decide whether it thinks that this amendment is appropriate as far as it affects this House and its Members—

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Does he not think that a Joint Select Committee of both Houses would be suitable? That was what was done in the case of disclaimer of peerages which, like this, affects both Houses. That was not just passed by one House and laid on the plate of the other. I respectfully suggest that in a matter of such high constitutional importance it is most important that the other place should be closely identified at this stage with what is proposed.

My Lords, it is open to noble Lords to propose setting up a Joint Select Committee in connection with this matter. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann has proposed this amendment, having considered the matter, and my noble friend has moved the amendment again this evening. Whether or not noble Lords want to pass the amendment is a question for the House. My view is that it is for Members of this House, the amendment having been tabled, to decide whether from their point of view it is an appropriate amendment to include in the Bill. If the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, the position in the other place would be that the Bill (with this amendment) would have to be considered there. I have no doubt that care would be taken in that consideration. Your Lordships have clearly expressed your view of the importance of this amendment and have stated certain of the difficulties implied by passing such an amendment. That matter would be before the other place. I think that that is appropriate.

The Government would not wish to take a view on this matter until the other place has had an opportunity to consider it. Therefore, the government view would be one of neutrality. I say that it is for the House as a whole to decide whether or not to pass the amendment. It may well be that the question of the extent to which the House has been consulted will be relevant in deciding what should happen tonight, but in my view it is right that the House should consider and decide its view on this matter before the Bill leaves this House—

My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again. He has used the phrase, "before the Bill leaves this House", but there is a Third Reading before then.

My Lords, my noble and learned friend will know that I understand that. That is precisely why I used the phrase that the matter could be considered before the Bill leaves this House. In other words, there is another opportunity than tonight for the amendment to be incorporated into the Bill if that is what your Lordships want. My noble and learned friend's intervention is extremely helpful and points out what I had in mind. It is for my noble friend to decide what he wishes to do with the amendment.

My Lords, first, having listened to the earlier debate I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would appreciate that, had the amendment been beyond the scope of the Bill, the Public Bill Office would have said so. It did not, so it is within the scope of the Bill.

Secondly, the question of petitioning the other House was dealt with fully in Committee. The same argument was used, "There are not many people in the House; it is a pity; let's have it again". Here we are a second time. On the last occasion, the amendment received general support, including from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who perhaps more than anyone would know the feeling of another place. I am loath to see the amendment withdrawn because that would mean more delay. There is also the fact that I shall be abroad on parliamentary business on 7th May. I have been here twice. I have been able to make that possible twice, but I cannot be here on that occasion. I should feel sad if the amendment were not included in the Bill at this stage.

I remember arguing in another place that if there is a difference of opinion and if there is a later stage, put in the provision in question because that concentrates the mind and it can always be taken out. That is the point that I want to make. Including the amendment now gives us an opportunity. It means that no one can say that they did not know; that it was a starred amendment or that they did not have the time to see it. That could not happen if the amendment were included now in the Bill to be considered, if necessary, on Third Reading.

I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that it will go into the Bill. It can always be knocked out at the next stage or in another place. The point is quite simple: it affects both Houses. It only affects the privilege of an individual Member who wishes to withdraw his or her privilege. I do not want to repeat what has been said on two previous occasions. I very much hope that the amendment can go into the Bill on the understanding that it can always be pulled out at another stage. I beg to move.

My Lords, surely it is absurd for so empty a House to vote on so important a matter. The opportunity to do this again properly on Third Reading is to be preferred to asking so empty a House to vote on so important a matter.

My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, the Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".

Content!

Not-Content!

My Lords, I think that the "Not-Contents" have it.

Content!

Clear the Bar.

My Lords, I think it is important to notice that if the amendment is not to be put into the Bill tonight, the obvious answer is that those who may be very content with it need not vote for it tonight.

The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".

I think that the correct ruling is that the amendment does not go in the Bill at this stage in view of the fact that there are no voices from either side.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Clause 20 [Short title and saving]:

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 14, line 27, leave out ("the legislature of") and insert ("a legislature in").

moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 16:

Page 14, line 34, after ("Justice") insert ("(or any court attached to that court)").

Page 15, line 26, after ("proceedings") insert ("in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or").

Page 15, line 51, after ("of") insert ("any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or of").

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 16, line 44, at end insert—

("() References in this Schedule to a member State include any European dependent territory of a member State.").